# Nurse duped by Australian radio DJs found dead in suspected suicide



## Jarnhamar (7 Dec 2012)

Anyone think radio hoax's or gags are starting to go too far?

http://www.news.com.au/world/hospital-receptionist-duped-by-australian-radio-djs-dies-in-suspected-suicide/story-fndir2ev-1226532600709


> THREE days after being duped by Australian radio presenters during a royal phone prank, a London nurse has been found dead after an apparent suicide.
> 
> Jacintha Saldanha, 46, a mother of two, was unable to be revived after being found unconscious at a nurses' accommodation block near London's exclusive King Edward VII Hospital at 9.35am (local time) on Friday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Devo3733 (7 Dec 2012)

While it's terrible something like this occured over a radio phone hoax..  The details seem incredibly minor to warrant a suicide.  It's not as if the radio hoax had her selling posessions, divorcing her husband, hating on her family, or anything like that.  She gave patient information to whom she thought was a family member, a mistake yes, but a life/career ending one? hardly.

I dunno.. I've heard of plenty of radio hoaxes that get right nasty, but this one just doesn't seem that harmful.
Hell in my home city they publicly shame cheaters by calling pretending to be a "free flower arrangement" award and asking who they want to send them to while the girlfriend is listening on the line and listening to the &$% storm that comes after.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Dec 2012)

Devo3733 said:
			
		

> She gave patient information to whom she thought was a family member, a mistake yes, but a life/career ending one? hardly.



Maybe the fact she could forever lose the ability to feed her family might not mean much to you....................


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Dec 2012)

Devo3733 said:
			
		

> While it's terrible something like this occured over a radio phone hoax.



Should have stopped right there.


----------



## Devo3733 (8 Dec 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Maybe the fact she could forever lose the ability to feed her family might not mean much to you....................



As opposed to death with turns that could into an absolute?  I suppose if she was for sure being fired over the whole ordeal that adds quite a lot of seriousness, but that's not clear.  Radio pranks and most of their "competitions" are ridiculous, but it's still a suprising escalation.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Dec 2012)

Let's not jump to conclusions. What I think is a small inconvenience maybe a huge issue to another. Lets see what turns up before we condemn the DJs.

It is a sad state of affairs that it turned out like this.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Dec 2012)

Devo3733 said:
			
		

> As opposed to death with turns that could into an absolute?  I suppose if she was for sure being fired over the whole ordeal that adds quite a lot of seriousness, but that's not clear.  Radio pranks and most of their "competitions" are ridiculous, but it's still a suprising escalation.



Like many things in life, everyone has a different tolerance for their emotional response to actions they are involved in or observe, both for the seminal event, and any fallout whether that be legal, employment sanctions, teasing or bullying, etc. None of us can judge where someone else's personal threshold is or should be. To do so is simple arrogance. How you think you would react is completely immaterial with regard to how she might have responded within her own mind. This is neither the time nor the place for any of us to judge her or her reactions, the degree of connection is yet to be established and made public, but if the prank call was a factor, the gross insensitivity of the DJs is where social attention should be focused. the question is not why any of us think it should have led to suicide, but why western society thinks abusing the good nature of people in the manner the DJs did is an acceptable behaviour in the first place. If it was just humorous and embarrassing, they would have claimed all the credit for the viral attention ... similarly, it having gone badly, they own that too, completely and without any mitigation.


----------



## Devo3733 (8 Dec 2012)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Like many things in life, everyone has a different tolerance for their emotional response to actions they are involved in or observe, both for the seminal event, and any fallout whether that be legal, employment sanctions, teasing or bullying, etc. None of us can judge where someone else's personal threshold is or should be. To do so is simple arrogance. How you think you would react is completely immaterial with regard to how she might have responded within her own mind. This is neither the time nor the place for any of us to judge her or her reactions, the degree of connection is yet to be established and made public, but if the prank call was a factor, the gross insensitivity of the DJs is where social attention should be focused. the question is not why any of us think it should have led to suicide, but why western society thinks abusing the good nature of people in the manner the DJs did is an acceptable behaviour in the first place. If it was just humorous and embarrassing, they would have claimed all the credit for the viral attention ... similarly, it having gone badly, they own that too, completely and without any mitigation.



Certainly.  I'll be the first to admit I know absolutely nothing of her personality, how something like this could affect her based on present circumstances, personality, and culture.  The original point was that "these things go too far", and my point is that it's suprising that this sort of prank has ended up the way it has (or atleast looks, preliminarily, before investigations and whatnot).  There are already lynch mobs and people howling for the blood of the DJs but it's very unlikely that anyone could have forseen it going this badly.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Dec 2012)

Devo3733 said:
			
		

> but it's very unlikely that anyone could have forseen it going this badly.



I'll bet most drunk driver's think that afterwards also.....


----------



## Devo3733 (8 Dec 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'll bet most drunk driver's think that afterwards also.....



Now you're just being dramatic.
She forwarded the phone call to the department where Kate was, anyone who sais they could see this coming are full of it.
A call was made, a person has died, instantly the caller is made the devil without any further information.  It's a sad and terrible series of events but far from a nefarious plot of murder.


----------



## brihard (8 Dec 2012)

Devo3733 said:
			
		

> Now you're just being dramatic.
> She forwarded the phone call to the department where Kate was, anyone who sais they could see this coming are full of it.
> A call was made, a person has died, instantly the caller is made the devil without any further information.  It's a sad and terrible series of events but far from a nefarious plot of murder.



You beat me to it by a second. The nurse who is dead said nothing more than "Oh yes, just hold on ma’am." as she put the call through to the nurses' station. That's it. She didn't give any info up or anything.

No way to DJs could have predicted something like this happening. No way anyone could have, really. It's simply a tragedy with no good explanation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Dec 2012)

Guess I'm not, nor ever have been, a big fan of trying to make ridicule of perfect strangers on a national scale...................carry on......


----------



## brihard (8 Dec 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Guess I'm not, nor ever have been, a big fan of trying to make ridicule of perfect strangers on a national scale...................carry on......



No, and I agree. But being the sort of jackass who makes prank phone calls is a long way form being culpable in a death, which some people seem to be holding these two to be. I draw a big distinction between the two.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Dec 2012)

I want to learn more about the incident, but based on what's been said here, consider this:  would one's feelings be different about the people calling the hospital if they'd been reporters instead of radio show hosts?

To me, if it's not cool for one, it's not cool for the other.  Either media can do this, or media can't - for "informing", or for entertaining.

More, as I learn more ....


----------



## Sythen (8 Dec 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> No, and I agree. But being the sort of jackass who makes prank phone calls is a long way form being culpable in a death, which some people seem to be holding these two to be. I draw a big distinction between the two.



Right now, bullying is the hot button issue, and how is this any different? The guy who filmed his room mate having gay sex was found guilty. Where is the difference?


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Dec 2012)

Devo3733 said:
			
		

> While it's terrible something like this occured over a radio phone hoax..  The details seem incredibly minor to warrant a suicide.  It's not as if the radio hoax had her selling posessions, divorcing her husband, hating on her family, or anything like that.  She gave patient information to whom she thought was a family member, a mistake yes, but a life/career ending one? hardly.



*She* could have been embarrassed,  both professionally and nationally.  In all fairness you're not exactly in a position to judge what an acceptable level of embarrassment/shame/stress in someone is in order for them to commit suicide.  To you it may be a bad joke, to her she could have seen it as the end of the world.



I think any radio DJ or TV personality who contacts someone under the guise of another name for jokes like this should be at the very least charged with fraud.

What if someones kid was in the hospital and a DJ called pretending to be a family member and the nurse accidentally let it slip that the kid contracted HIV and it was broadcast over the air nationally?  Where's the line drawn.

DJs and TV shows et el contacting people on air pretending to be someone else in order to get laughs is going too far.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Dec 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I think any radio DJ or TV personality who contacts someone under the guise of another name for jokes like this should be at the very least charged with fraud.
> 
> What if someones kid was in the hospital and a DJ called pretending to be a family member and the nurse accidentally let it slip that the kid contracted HIV and it was broadcast over the air nationally?  Where's the line drawn.
> 
> DJs and TV shows et el contacting people on air pretending to be someone else in order to get laughs is going too far.



I agree. This form of "entertainment" that intentionally embarasses others to gather ratings should be frowned upon my station management. 
Are there any laws already on the books that would apply to this sort of thing?


----------



## mariomike (8 Dec 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Are there any laws already on the books that would apply to this sort of thing?



Apparently not in Australia.

"Prank call pre-recorded and vetted by lawyers before broadcast in Sydney."


----------



## GR66 (8 Dec 2012)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Apparently not in Australia.
> 
> "Prank call pre-recorded and vetted by lawyers before broadcast in Sydney."



I wonder if the call had turned up something really juicy if the lawyers would have stopped it from being broadcast or if they would have just run it as "news" instead?


----------



## Journeyman (8 Dec 2012)

Devo3733 said:
			
		

> The details seem incredibly minor to warrant a suicide.


I wasn't aware of a matrix that laid out where the option of suicide is warranted.  We have no idea if this call alone drove her to the edge, or if it was merely the tipping point in a series of pre-existing demons. 

Either way, I'm on the side of finding practical jokes neither practical nor funny...from the flaming paper bag of dog shit, to "America's Funniest Videos," up to this international-scale 'joke'  --  stupidity is already rampant, without it being actively cultivated.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Dec 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> \What if someones kid was in the hospital and a DJ called pretending to be a family member and the nurse accidentally let it slip that the kid contracted HIV and it was broadcast over the air nationally?  Where's the line drawn.


Good point - how would you feel if it was your family member's health information shared with everyone?


----------



## FJAG (8 Dec 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> You beat me to it by a second. The nurse who is dead said nothing more than "Oh yes, just hold on ma’am." as she put the call through to the nurses' station. That's it. She didn't give any info up or anything.
> 
> No way to DJs could have predicted something like this happening. No way anyone could have, really. It's simply a tragedy with no good explanation.



I don't think the prediction of a suicide is the standard we should be focusing on when determining whether or not these types of calls are acceptable.

When they started out they should have reasonably foreseen two possible outcomes. One: they would not be put through in which case their stunt had no value to them as an "event" or two: they would be put through and thereby embarrass the hospital and the staff involved. It would be reasonable to assume that over and above the embarrassment to the staff they would be liable to disciplinary or administrative action as a result.

Why would any reasonable person proceed on a course of action where your desirable outcome will most probably result in embarrassment or discipline to caring junior staff at a hospital? Because they are unfeeling self-centred individuals for whom the fun and notoriety of a few minutes of air time is more important than what happens to other people.  

IMHO its one thing to punk some big political figure or movie star but when the victim can easily be seen to be junior employees then a big bold line in the sand has been crossed.

Colour me   with these two.

As an aside, there are laws about "personation" in most common law countries which effectively deal with some person passing themselves off as a public official. Not sure whether the crime happened in the UK or Australia or whether these circumstances can be stretched to be included but I presume someone is looking at that notwithstanding the "clearance" by the station's lawyers.


----------



## garb811 (8 Dec 2012)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Why would any reasonable person proceed on a course of action where your desirable outcome will most probably result in embarrassment or discipline to caring junior staff at a hospital? Because they are unfeeling self-centred individuals for whom the fun and notoriety of a few minutes of air time is more important than what happens to other people.


Because, at the end of the day, as has been discussed here ad nauseum, it is what today's "media" are paid to do.  They are paid to get ratings, at any cost in many cases, and they don't really care who is run over in the quest for the scoop.  The station doesn't care about the human engineering that allowed them to gain access to the personal nurse and obtain the initial scoop, they only care about the bad press and advertisers starting to pull their ads as a result of the subsequent suicide.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Dec 2012)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Why would any reasonable person proceed on a course of action where your desirable outcome will most probably result in embarrassment or discipline to caring junior staff at a hospital? Because they are unfeeling self-centred individuals for whom the fun and notoriety of a few minutes of air time is more important than what happens to other people.





			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> Because, at the end of the day, as has been discussed here ad nauseum, it is what today's "media" are paid to do.  They are paid to get ratings, at any cost in many cases, and they don't really care who is run over in the quest for the scoop.  The station doesn't care about the human engineering that allowed them to gain access to the personal nurse and obtain the initial scoop, they only care about the bad press and advertisers starting to pull their ads as a result of the subsequent suicide.



I'm sure in light of this the public will turn these radio DJs into monsters. People LOVE a pile on like this and I could easily see their lives being made very uncomfortable over it.
I'm sure these radio DJs didn't foresee this happening and they're likely "good people" but I can't find any sympathy for them. They can suck up the public backlash over it. Maybe it will make people in their position think twice before doing this shit in the future.

Radio and TV shows need to ban this practice.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Dec 2012)

I find the funniest comedians are those who find something particularly humorous that many people can relate to, but that isn't a particular slam of any one person.  So-called "humor" intended to deliberately come at the expense of another individual, particularly where the target individual is not away of their being targeted is not very funny at all...I like others don't find the "punk'd" style of practical jokes to be very funny at all.

My thoughts are with the woman's husband, two daughters and her colleagues.

To whatever degree the DJs' actions contributed to her death, they will have to deal with that on their own.

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Dec 2012)

FJAG said:
			
		

> .... Why would any reasonable person proceed on a course of action where your desirable outcome will most probably result in embarrassment or discipline to caring junior staff at a hospital? Because they are unfeeling self-centred individuals for whom the fun and notoriety of a few minutes of air time is more important than what happens to other people ....





			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> Because, at the end of the day, as has been discussed here ad nauseum, it is what today's "media" are paid to do ....


----------



## Devo3733 (8 Dec 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Are there any laws already on the books that would apply to this sort of thing?



I would imagine there must be some fairly hefty repercussions possible for impersonating the queen or any other member of the royal family.. But that would be UK law, possibly not Australia.


----------



## ArmyRick (8 Dec 2012)

I agree with Jim. Taking humour in a stupid prank or the ridicule of someone else is not on. Alot of people may find it funny...unless it was happening to them.


----------



## garb811 (9 Dec 2012)

Yet everyone nodded their heads and laughed to Rick Mercer talking to Americans because, hey, it's Rick Mercer and showing the ignorance of American's towards Canada is always funny as hell! (to most Canadians anyways, I'm not so sure what those in the segments would actually think about being immortalized on YouTube in such a fashion...)


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Dec 2012)

Not everyone, garb811.  While I generally appreciate Rick Mercer's self-deprecating humour and his tireless support of the troops, I, and I'm sure many others, found his "talking with Americans" segment to be mean-spirited and arrogant and in fact showed an attitude that was actually the opposite of what Canadians generally espouse.  I didn't like it when he did it, and after thanking him for his support in general, I told him my disappointment in him on this issue when he visited our unit in Afghanistan.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Dec 2012)

My cousins (who were born and raised in Michigan) saw Rick Mercers talking to Americans stints and were very unimpressed. A lot of Americans living close to the border understand Canadians very well and have been here numerous times. I agree, I didn't appreciate Rick Mercers Talking to Americans stints. How would we appreciate someone from Texas or New Mexico having fun with us because we do not understand life in that part of the world.

Back to the point, this was not on, end of story. I will not support public or even private pranks. I have seen guys get way overboard with pranks.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Dec 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I find the funniest comedians are those who find something particularly humorous that many people can relate to, but that isn't a particular slam of any one person.  So-called "humor" intended to deliberately come at the expense of another individual, particularly where the target individual is not away of their being targeted is not very funny at all...I like others don't find the "punk'd" style of practical jokes to be very funny at all.
> 
> My thoughts are with the woman's husband, two daughters and her colleagues.
> 
> ...



And don't get me started on "Jackass" - what useless shenanigans that is.


----------



## Devo3733 (9 Dec 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> And don't get me started on "Jackass" - what useless shenanigans that is.



True enough, atleast a good portion of that though is simply doing damage to themselves.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Dec 2012)

Typical media sensitivity.

Husband hasn't spoken publicly but the media is reading his facebook page and quoting from it.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Dec 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Typical media sensitivity.
> 
> Husband hasn't spoken publicly but the media is reading his facebook page and quoting from it.



And I thought that posting comments to Facebook and Twitter (and the other idiot devices of communication) that anyone could view was "speaking publically".


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Dec 2012)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> And I thought that posting comments to Facebook and Twitter (and the other idiot devices of communication) that anyone could view was "speaking publically".



Exactly.  If it's private, don't post it on the internet.


----------



## Sythen (11 Dec 2012)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> And I thought that posting comments to Facebook and Twitter (and the other idiot devices of communication) that anyone could view was "speaking publically".



Or maybe, like a lot of people (however erroneously), he believed it would only be seen by friends and family? I still can't get my mom to understand that anyone can see what she posts as she believes that if she doesn't "friend" them they can't see her.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Dec 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Or maybe, like a lot of people (however erroneously), he believed it would only be seen by friends and family? I still can't get my mom to understand that anyone can see what she posts as she believes that if she doesn't "friend" them they can't see her.



Depends on your privacy settings.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2012)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> And I thought that posting comments to Facebook and Twitter (and the other idiot devices of communication) that anyone could view was "speaking publically".



Fair enough.  It still bugs me that the media went out of their way to creep this guys facebook page and dig up comments he made (in all likelyhood to friends and family) about his wifes suicide then put it in the news.  The same thing happened to that single mom down in Trenton not too long ago.

More reasons to safeguard your privacy.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Dec 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  It still bugs me that the media went out of their way to creep this guys facebook page and dig up comments he made (in all likelyhood to friends and family) about his wifes suicide then put it in the news.  The same thing happened to that single mom down in Trenton not too long ago.



So, his wife killed herself a couple of days ago and he's posting on FB?  You know there's no level the media won't stoop to, to get a story...



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> More reasons to safeguard your privacy.



Or not post shit like that online.....just sayin'.....


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> So, his wife killed herself a couple of days ago and he's posting on FB?  You know there's no level the media won't stoop to, to get a story...



Responding to friends and family offering condolences and support yup.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Dec 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Responding to friends and family offering condolences and support yup.



I guess everyone grieves differently.....   :dunno:


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I guess everyone grieves differently.....   :dunno:



Agreed.  When one of my soldiers sons hung themselves at Christmas time he posted an update on facebook thanking everyone for their support and condolences and posted when the funeral services were.  We were glad to hear from him.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Dec 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> PMedMoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bang on - what helps for one might not work for another.  That said, it's a good thing to pay close attention to who can see what you post BEFORE something happens where you're not thinking straight, and may share stuff you don't _really_ want to share as broadly.

Sadly, such lessons have to be learned when mistakes happen.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Dec 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I guess everyone grieves differently.....   :dunno:



When Mike was killed one of our friends set up a FB in Mike's memory. It helps, or at least I think so.


----------



## old medic (28 Jan 2013)

Kate Middleton prank DJs get jobs back

Associated Press
28 Jan 2013
copy at: http://www.thespec.com/news/article/876870--kate-middleton-prank-djs-get-jobs-back


> SYDNEY The Australian radio show behind a hoax phone call to the London hospital where the pregnant Duchess of Cambridge was being treated has been officially cancelled.
> 
> The show and the two DJs behind the prank in December were widely condemned after the death of a nurse who answered the phone and helped the DJs get confidential information about the former Kate Middleton’s health.
> 
> ...


----------

