The Nurse & The DJs.

[Eric]

I feel like I'm a crazy person that can't fully wrap my head around this.

The story going around is, some DJs prank called a hospital and a nurse picked up, they pretended to be royals, the nurse transferred the call and then later she killed herself.

She was married with 2 kids, the hospital, which could have been upset, didn't suspend her or fire her, the news story, honestly didn't get alot of circulation until the mass media picked it up, and even then I barely heard of it until after she actually committed suicide.

I feel like it just doesn't add up. I realize some people can be unstable, and you never know what can push them over the edge, but damn.

[kali o.]

I had no idea what you were talking about...I had to google it. Stupid story. People kill themselves for dumb reasons all the time...it doesn't seem media worthy. The saddest thing here is how unfunny the call was...

[Don]

Apparently giving out confidential information about your patient is supposed to be a big deal, but still seems odd.

[Shrinweck]

I had no idea what you were talking about...I had to google it. Stupid story. People kill themselves for dumb reasons all the time...it doesn't seem media worthy. The saddest thing here is how unfunny the call was...

Yeah morning radio pranks have always been shit and should just go away. Very sad this happened but at this point, assuming no foul play, the story should just go away since everyone involved just wants their privacy and the DJs shouldn't be given any more publicity. All the radio should be, other than news and information, is music and music promotion with occasional comedy from actual comedians not asshole DJs.

Assuming the DJs didn't inform the nurse she was on the air or get permission through signed contracts, they should get fucked by the long arm of the law.

[kali o.]

Assuming the DJs didn't inform the nurse she was on the air or get permission through signed contracts, they should get fucked by the long arm of the law.

Meh, I don't agree with that. What are you going to charge em with? Not being funny? Having an unstable nurse pick up the phone in the first degree? We are talking about, literally, a 5 second conversation and transfer. They already lost their show (which I think is silly unless their ratings blew), I can't see the need for anything else.

[Shrinweck]

It's illegal in a bunch of countries to put someone on the radio without them first signing a contract or informing them that they're being broadcast.

[kali o.]

It's illegal in a bunch of countries to put someone on the radio without them first signing a contract or informing them that they're being broadcast.

I don't know of one -- can you actually provide an example? If you can (and it's not some stretch like a privacy issue or wire tapping reach), you do realize that's a civil issue, not a criminal one...right?

[Shrinweck]

I don't even know where to check for specific laws like this but I know for certain it's a law in the United States and the BBC mentioned it was a law in Australia in an article I read recently. The prank calls on the morning show I listened to in middle school had the idiot DJs muttering "You'reontheair" every time they got put through to someone new.

The radio station in question for the incident called the hospital multiple times to attempt to get the permission from the nurses.

A quote from the Dailymail.co.uk:

It is illegal there to make a ‘menacing, harassing or offensive’ phone call and to broadcast a surreptitiously recorded call without the permission of the recipient.

There being Australia where the radio station in question operates.

[kali o.]

Most countries have their laws available online in some fashion. I just assumed you knew since you made the statement. Since you don't, I will just put that aside for now.

Taking what you wrote, however, I will point out three things: First, if they sought permission after the fact, then the determination has to be made whether the actual prank or the transmission of the prank contributed to the death (good luck). Second, if it was aired after the fact, then the DJs probably didn't make that call -- a producer or manager did. Third, there was nothing 'menacing, harassing or offensive' in the 5 second conversation I heard, nor was it the radio station that revealed her private information. Do you believe different?

Even if you could justify the first in court, it's a civil issue (possibly a regulation issue too, depending on how Australia radio/TV is set up). You can bet the radio station/DJs will be sued by the family and a settlement will happen, but there is nothing criminal here (maybe a misdeamenor at most in the US). If there is a law on the books that demands consent to broadcast, we are dealing with a fine at best (nothing related to her actually killing herself). There was nothing malcious (or private) in their short dealing with that particular nurse.

In a perfect world, the family couldn't sue period. It's a sign of our silly litigious times. As if the DJs could reasonably be expected to anticipate the reaction of one deeply disturbed and troubled individual that was working as a Nurse...stemming from a completely silly (though not funny) phone conversation. If the women was upset over her lack of competence at screening calls, is the REALLY the DJs fault? And is it a normal reaction to kill yourself over something like that.

I have no sympathy for this nurse. I feel bad for the DJs.

[Shrinweck]

You're reading into my post about the arm of the law having its way with them as me saying they deserve to tried as criminals and potentially sent to prison? That's not what I think at all.

In the United States it's against FCC policy and the DJs would be fined. I'm not familiar with a website with a universal law database that lets me look up every minute law in every country and collates them in an easily discernible way, but somehow I doubted in my previous post that broadcasting policy differs very much in this regard from country to country, especially countries so linked in their origins (UK, Australia, USA). I was being vague here using the word "bunch" on purpose since I didn't know specifics.

I think you also took my comment to think that I believe the family should be able to sue (?). I don't really care about this one way or the other. Civil suits can basically be for anything (in the US), including counter suits for original suits being silly, so if they make their case well enough then they should take what they get since that's the kind of society we live in these days. I don't particularly agree with all the litigation that goes on these days but the system is there to be used. The woman clearly had to have been ill to take her life, just like any suicidal person.The DJs are only on the peripheral for being accountable for what this woman did, but because they got the ball rolling they're easy scapegoats.

People should take responsibility for their actions. Meaning the DJs deserve to take what's coming to them, whatever form that ends up taking. The DJs are victims of a circumstance that they engineered. In a perfect world a mother wouldn't have left her children motherless.

I've expended too much effort reading about laws and this particular event since I only cared in a very cursory way as it was, so I'm probably done on this topic now :P

[kali o.]

You're reading into my post about the arm of the law having its way with them as me saying they deserve to tried as criminals and potentially sent to prison? That's not what I think at all.

In the United States it's against FCC policy and the DJs would be fined. I'm not familiar with a website with a universal law database that lets me look up every minute law in every country and collates them in an easily discernible way, but somehow I doubted in my previous post that broadcasting policy differs very much in this regard from country to country, especially countries so linked in their origins (UK, Australia, USA). I was being vague here using the word "bunch" on purpose since I didn't know specifics.

I think you also took my comment to think that I believe the family should be able to sue (?). I don't really care about this one way or the other. Civil suits can basically be for anything (in the US), including counter suits for original suits being silly, so if they make their case well enough then they should take what they get since that's the kind of society we live in these days. I don't particularly agree with all the litigation that goes on these days but the system is there to be used. The woman clearly had to have been ill to take her life, just like any suicidal person.The DJs are only on the peripheral for being accountable for what this woman did, but because they got the ball rolling they're easy scapegoats.

People should take responsibility for their actions. Meaning the DJs deserve to take what's coming to them, whatever form that ends up taking. The DJs are victims of a circumstance that they engineered. In a perfect world a mother wouldn't have left her children motherless.

I've expended too much effort reading about laws and this particular event since I only cared in a very cursory way as it was, so I'm probably done on this topic now

Well I understand better what you are saying (because, yes, it did seem like you were suggesting they were criminals).

I also agree people should take responsibilty for their actions...and the DJs have gone above and beyond (hell, I think I read the Station was "donating" $500,000 to the family). As I said, they couldn't anticipate this nutjob would off themselves...they are just the easy visible scapegoat. Maybe her husband beat her...maybe daddy didn't love her....maybe her kids are little shits....maybe the government didn't provide local suicide prevention resources...who the hell knows.

I also find the event silly and not worth discussing. I did find your response interesting though.

Edit: Also as far as I know, no one website exists. Though generally all laws and acts are available online for each. For example:
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/200 ... 002-51.pdf