I consider many radio "pranks" to be intrusive and hurtful.

The radio station in question is the same one that a few years did this....

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...SrEry-crGw

You think they would've learned from their previous stupidity.

Apparently not.

The DJs involved encouraged the nurse to break the Data Protection Act which can lead to a fine, imprisonment and or the sack.
In the current climate government employers are looking for every opportunity to get shot of people without having to pay redundancy money.
Personally I can understand what the woman did embarrassment on this scale can be almost painful.
Even if some of you feel she needed to be "mentally unwell" or have other problems. I can see how this incident could have been enough all by itself to cause the death, especially as it is in the full glare of publicity which would have made things 1000 times worse.

Downbeat, they did not encourage her to break any act. She was a receptionist who connected the pranksters to another nurse. That is all she did.

After having listened the the entire prank call, it's hard to justify all the hate for the DJs over this death. The DJ pretending to be the Queen asked the nurse if she could speak to "Kate". The nurse, clearly thinking that she was speaking to the actual Queen, did not question anything and immediately transferred the call.

After that, the DJs were speaking to an entirely different nurse, who relayed them the private and confidential information. This was not the nurse who killed herself; the nurse who transferred the call did that. In reality, the DJs did very little wrong; they were audibly surprised (whilst being transferred) that the prank had worked so well...they hadn't even mentioned who they were pretending to be at this point. The nurse on the other hand, had violated hospital policy concerning relatives of patients, and quite likely some security policies as well.

If you honestly believe that someone can commit suicide over something like this, you need to get your own head looked at. Yes, this event was probably the final thing that pushed her over the edge, but I suspect we'll find in the oncoming weeks that she had a history of depression and bouts of suicidal behaviour. If there is anyone who should be blamed here, it is the hospital for not making sure the nurses involved were properly counseled after the prank phone call was revealed. The statement from the hospital said that the nurses weren't going to be disciplined, but said nothing about whether they were being seen by therapists. In a somewhat ironic twist, the radio station of the two DJs involved announced after the prank call was aired that those involved were being counseled, due to the massive negative reaction to the prank.

It was a tragic turn of events, but in no way did the DJs anticipate this could happen, and quite honestly, neither did anyone else. Demanding the heads of the pranksters isn't going to bring the nurse back, nor will it stop pranks in the future from going wrong. What will is a good review of policy, and making sure that staff know not to make massive assumptions about who is on the other end of the phone. That, and making sure that when someone does screw up, they are properly looked after.

---

P.S. Germans, you don't seem to know what the word "verbose" means.

---

(December 9, 2012 at 8:57 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: The DJs involved encouraged the nurse to break the Data Protection Act which can lead to a fine, imprisonment and or the sack.

No they didn't. They never mentioned the act; ergo, there was no encouragement for the (second) nurse to break it. They asked for information, and the nurse broke the act by giving it to them. She should have denied them that information.

Quote:In the current climate government employers are looking for every opportunity to get shot of people without having to pay redundancy money.

The hospital stated that they were not disciplining the nurses involved.

Quote:Personally I can understand what the woman did embarrassment on this scale can be almost painful.

True, but to some extent it was brought upon herself. She screwed up; didn't ask any questions to verify their identities, and assumed she was talking to the Queen.

Quote:Even if some of you feel she needed to be "mentally unwell" or have other problems. I can see how this incident could have been enough all by itself to cause the death, especially as it is in the full glare of publicity which would have made things 1000 times worse.

You clearly know nothing about depression and suicide if you think someone with a stable mind would commit suicide over this. The event was in the public eye, true, but the nurses themselves weren't. The nurse who committed suicide was only identified after she did so, and as far as I am aware, the nurse who actually gave away the information is still unknown.

She assumed to be talking to a previledged old hag that somehow rules an island. And all due to a "princess" being knocked out. Great.

And the futility prize for 2012 goes to...

(December 9, 2012 at 8:57 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: The DJs involved encouraged the nurse to break the Data Protection Act which can lead to a fine, imprisonment and or the sack.

Quote:No they didn't. They never mentioned the act; ergo, there was no encouragement for the (second) nurse to break it. They asked for information, and the nurse broke the act by giving it to them.

Asking a data holder for sensitive information IS asking them to break the act.
You don't have to name it.

Quote: She should have denied them that information.

Agreed. She should have denied then the information, but that was her queen on the phone and she was probably dazzled by the attention and made a stupid error.

Quote:
The hospital stated that they were not disciplining the nurses involved.

Well not now anyway.

Quote:Personally I can understand what the woman did embarrassment on this scale can be almost painful.

Quote:True, but to some extent it was brought upon herself. She screwed up; didn't ask any questions to verify their identities, and assumed she was talking to the Queen.

Quote:Even if some of you feel she needed to be "mentally unwell" or have other problems. I can see how this incident could have been enough all by itself to cause the death, especially as it is in the full glare of publicity which would have made things 1000 times worse.

You clearly know nothing about depression and suicide if you think someone with a stable mind would commit suicide over this. The event was in the public eye, true, but the nurses themselves weren't. The nurse who committed suicide was only identified after she did so, and as far as I am aware, the nurse who actually gave away the information is still unknown.

She may have had no mental problems right up to the precipitating event.
Sudden trauma emotional or physical, can cause changes in behaviour in otherwise mentally healthy people.

Quote:An adjustment disorder occurs when an individual is unable to adjust to or cope with a particular stressor, like a major life event. Since people with this disorder normally have symptoms that depressed people do, such as general loss of interest, feelings of hopelessness and crying, this disorder is also sometimes known as situational depression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjustment_disorder

What a lot people seem to be missing is this:
1) The woman who committed suicide did not break any act.
2) The woman who broke the act did so of her own accord instead of verifying as required. That is a crime -- one that is specifically supposed to be protected against by verifying who it is.

This is a tragic act of social engineering gone awry.

TGAC, I often agree with you, especially regarding anti-democratic groups receiving public funding by virtue of being "a political party".

But it is ludicrous to hold two men utterly responsible when:
1) Someone else broke the law
2) Someone managed the two men (and thus hold responsibility)

By you're restrictive definition, the men at the Deep Horizon spill are utterly responsible for the disaster, while the consistent cutting of safety inspections by the Executives that created an environment for terrific accidents to occur are completely blameless.

---

(December 9, 2012 at 2:00 pm)Tiberius Wrote: What will is a good review of policy, and making sure that staff know not to make massive assumptions about who is on the other end of the phone. That, and making sure that when someone does screw up, they are properly looked after.

This is not being said or iterated over enough here.

(December 9, 2012 at 2:24 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Asking a data holder for sensitive information IS asking them to break the act.
You don't have to name it.

No, asking a data holder for sensitive information is exactly that, and nothing more. By giving out that information, they would be breaking the act, but the actual act of asking for it is not the same as asking them to break the act itself.

In other words, there is a difference between:

"Please can I have <insert information>?"

and

"Please break the Data Protection Act and give me <insert information>."

I highly doubt the Australian DJs were even aware of the DPA. You cannot ask someone to break something you know nothing about.

Quote:Well not now anyway.

The hospital said they weren't disciplining the nurses before the suicide happened.

Moros Synackaon Wrote:But it is ludicrous to hold two men utterly responsible when:
1) Someone else broke the law
2) Someone managed the two men (and thus hold responsibility)

FYI, it was a man and a woman.

Quote:

(December 9, 2012 at 2:00 pm)Tiberius Wrote: What will is a good review of policy, and making sure that staff know not to make massive assumptions about who is on the other end of the phone. That, and making sure that when someone does screw up, they are properly looked after.

This is not being said or iterated over enough here.

I do a bit of social engineering at work. I know the importance of policy, and enforcing that policy.

(December 9, 2012 at 2:26 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: What a lot people seem to be missing is this:
1) The woman who committed suicide did not break any act.

I didn't know that until after my first posts.
She must have felt in some way culpable though to act how she did.
Unless of course its completely unrelated and everyone is barking up the wrong tree.

Was there a note?

Tiberius -- you're right. Although, it could be passably argued that "men" were used in the context of "manpower", which is gender-agnostic and denotes "men" in the same vein as "person".

DPB -- the investigation is unfolding. I am unaware of a note or anything else that would establish fear, guilt or otherwise that led up to the suicide.

Does anyone have a source that spells out the above? I might've missed it...