Skip to main content

BBC Radio, and The Independent newspaper are both reporting that a nurse at the centre of the prank phone-call incident has been found dead

From the Independent:

The nurse who took a prank phone call at the Duchess of Cambridge’s hospital has been found dead in a suspected suicide.

The woman received the phone call from two Australian radio presenters and, believing she was speaking with the Queen, passed it to a colleague who revealed private information about the Duchess’ condition.

The first person heard on the tape is a nurse who was manning the switchboard at the time the call came in. She transferred the call to a colleague who revealed more than she should.

It is the nurse who answered the call who is believed to have committed suicide.

The Duchess was released from the hospital yesterday but the stunt provoked global outrage.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were reported to be angry at the intrusion.

The woman nurse who has been found dead took the call from the radio DJs in the early hours of Tuesday morning saying: “Hello, good morning, King Edward VII Hospital.”

The presenter, Mel Greig, who was impersonating the Queen said: “Oh, hello there. Could I please speak to Kate please, my granddaughter?”

The BBC are reporting that the dead woman's family have been informed and that the hospital will make a statement later.

It's just so damned sad!

-

7:53 AM PT: The hospital have named the nurse. She is Jacintha Saldanha. She had been employed by the hospital for four years and was well-liked and trusted.

The hospital spokesman acknowledged that she was having a hard time following the incident, and that they had been supporting her through it.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Death (20+ / 0-)

    so much easier than facing our fate.  So sad for the surviving family.  If only the nurse would have realized that life goes on and soon the public would move on to some other outrageous crisis, thus forgetting her role.  Indeed, Twigg, so sad.

    being mindful and keepin' it real

    by Raggedy Ann on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:21:18 AM PST

  •  Why are American worried about Kate (5+ / 0-)

    When  some American face an uncertain  faith in thier own lives  struggle , Kate and her offspring will never know a day of misery  in thier life,

  •  Woah (10+ / 0-)

    There was no reason to go that far.

    My thoughts and prayers with the family.

  •  this is what's so scary about our hyper-media (11+ / 0-)

    culture...

    While the prank might have been a bit ill-conceived--it was a pretty standard-level prank and not anything beyond what's been going on on 'morning zoos' for ages.

    But the extreme focus on individuals facilitated by today's media can really be damaging.

    We don't know the story yet, obviously...but if it WAS because of the pressure (which seems likely), that's really tragic.  

  •  Very Sad Indeed (8+ / 0-)

    To take this course, but look around at what is happening in so called civil societies and in too many cases pranks and bullying type incidents are carried viral and some last far to long and are reported as news by far to many, with the societies wanting same!!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:31:16 AM PST

  •  Oh my, (6+ / 0-)

    How awful and shocking. The poor woman and her family.

  •  Because when someone takes their own life because (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, twigg, erush1345

    they might have fucked up at work and there was no harm/no foul, yet the errant person takes it so personally that they end their own life?
    That's a question?
    Or they are made to feel that they are incompetent in the public eyes. She saw her self as the servant to the future leader of her nation and she blew it.
    Japanese rulers and businessmen have even mostly chilled the hara-kiri; this was someone in "domestic service" in the food chain.
    I could go on, but the fact that someone kills themselves possibly out of a sense of misplaced/displaced sense of duty, trust or remorse, doesn't strike you as a bit sad and unfortunate?

    Never mind the gazillions of dollars and time spent by the media everyday on much less tragic occurrences just because it was a celebrity.
    Hit any thing or one lately Lindsay? Comes to mind.

    Occupy- Your Mind. - No better friend, no worse enemy. -8.75, -6.21<> Bring the Troops Home Yesterday

    by Thousandwatts on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:44:22 AM PST

    •  for some reason, reminds me of this quote by (8+ / 0-)

      the great NHL goaltender, Jacques Plante (first goalie to wear a mask):

      Goaltending is a normal job, sure. How would you like it in your job if every time you made a small mistake, a red light went on over your desk and 15,000 people stood up and yelled at you.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:43:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Its funny but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cassandracarolina

        the issue of medical records and confidentiality is huge. Even if she took it a bit personally, knowing how many people she possibly made less safe, less secure, and possibly even exposed to consequences from employers etc.

        And now it's all right. it's ok. And you may look the other way. We can try to understand The new york times effect on man.

        by Marcellus Shale on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:54:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sad yes. Sensical? No (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook

      This makes absolutely no sense.  She killed herself because she fell for a prank phone call?  And killed herself out of a sense of duty?

      My God, if only the parasite Wall Street CEOs and investors felt that bad about crashing the economy.  Compared to those who have stolen billions of dollars without remorse, nothing this woman did is even worth mention.

      She killed herself for no reason.  Sad is about the only word for it.

      •  people who care for others for a living... (4+ / 0-)

        may have a different sensibility than people who make their living off of others. And possibly not as tough a skin.

        Gently, I would add, suicide is not ever for "no reason." It's for not seeing hope, not seeing any light at the end of the tunnel, not seeing past the darkness or pain that suffocates everything. It may be this person felt it would be hard to ever "live this down" and maybe hard to ever succeed in her chosen work, or even just hold her head up while doing her chosen work. It may be those feelings were made exponentially more severe by shame for the error she was tricked into making, as shame is one of the most powerful forces all of us know. It may be that she could deal with the vitriol from all quarters but that someone she relied upon or whose opinion she cared about didn't back her up when she needed it, and her strength to hold back the darkness just caved. We can't know. And she can't tell us now. But I agree -- sad is the only word for it.

        Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that would be one step toward obtaining it. --Henry David Thoreau

        by pam on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:05:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  With all due respect, I appreciate your position, (0+ / 0-)

          having spent over ten years in healthcare where patient privacy is sacred and paramount, I understand the burden of patient confidentiality; however, at this juncture, it appears the young woman killed herself for having allowed access to royalty stricken with morning sickness.

          I see a distinction here, not in the letter of confidentiality that was broken, but definitely in the actual, or even perceived, harm that resulted.

          It seems evident, sadly enough, that there is more to explain her action than this incident.

          Very sad thing all around.

          Occupy- Your Mind. - No better friend, no worse enemy. -8.75, -6.21<> Bring the Troops Home Yesterday

          by Thousandwatts on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:46:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  She was 46 - Curious why you say "young woman"? (0+ / 0-)

            just wondering.

            •  Age is relative? (0+ / 0-)

              I am 52...

              She was a mom of a 16 year old and a 14 year old.

              To me, that's still young.

              That's why.

              Occupy- Your Mind. - No better friend, no worse enemy. -8.75, -6.21<> Bring the Troops Home Yesterday

              by Thousandwatts on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:15:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Totally agree that age is relative (0+ / 0-)

                -- that's why i was wondering if you'd turn out to be in your eighties, in which case you'd get a free pass cause, well, that's the old-folks' prerogative

                I have a brother about the same age-ballpark as this nurse and yourself (the difference between age 46 and 52 seems pretty small to me, lol !)

                ...whose kids are young, younger even than those of this unfortunate nurse

                and parenting them does indeed keep him and his wife, in  many ways, very much "younger-seeming" than if they had started their family sooner.

                Maybe that's what you were thinking of.

                Still, it would be jarring for me to hear anyone refer to my brother, if he died today, as a "young man" or worse, "young gentleman" or his (same-age) wife as a "young lady"

                •  If we were to ascribe an adjective to this, I (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  stellaluna

                  suppose "middle-aged" may be more what you are comfortable with; and probably more technically accurate.
                  I would guess you are younger than your brother, hence. the reason you would, and apparently do, feel "jarred".
                  She was in the midst of her life, she wasn't finished rearing her children, she was younger than me- she had a lot of potential living yet to do- and believe me, for whatever reason, forty-six "seems" a lot younger than fifty-two when one is in it.
                  It's sort of like the difference between being thirteen and nineteen- only six years, but a hell of a difference in life experience etc.
                  I find it interesting that you are struck or "jarred" by someone forty-six being described as a "young lady".
                  I get it, because I know my sons (16 and 20) would share your exception to the description.
                  Also, considering she apparently killed herself- that act in itself, puts things in a different descriptive category based on my own life experiences- to kill oneself at forty-six is to die young, in my mind, there is no question- it's young.

                  You are also, consciously or not, applying your own preconceived notion of "old" vs  "young" to a numerical age, but as you have observed, when one is in the midst of rearing children etc, they "seem" younger. I would submit, it is because they are younger- perhaps not chronologically or "numerically" but in factual life terms, they are younger.
                  It's semantics and more.
                  Just as some twenty somethings are a lot "older" than other twenty somethings though they may only be separated chronologically by a few months or a year.

                  Not to sound like an old geezer, but out here in middle-aged land, to kill oneself or to die, in general, at forty-six, is to die, young.

                  Occupy- Your Mind. - No better friend, no worse enemy. -8.75, -6.21<> Bring the Troops Home Yesterday

                  by Thousandwatts on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:14:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  *smile* (0+ / 0-)

                    Isn't it funny what mistaken guesses people make about each other on the internet -- I am a few years than you are

                    but I was speculating, from your language, you might be an octogenarian

                    and it sounds like you were guessing I might be someone still thoughtlessly enjoying my callow, callow youth :)

                    no, I just reacted to your "young lady" phrasing because it seemed disrespectful to the dignity of that poor woman

                    We live in a big country with many linguistic traditions

                    (my own upbringing was in 3 different regions of the South)

                    so, perhaps you haven't been exposed to the way quite a few Southern folks use "young lady" in a subtle, insidiously disparaging manner?

                    In the fine old tradition I am referring to,

                    (I am gritting my middle-aged teeth just thinking about it!)

                    whatever you are about to hear, right after someone else is referred to as a "young lady"

                    ... is almost guaranteed to be something unflattering to her dignity, maturity, judgment

                    I must have heard and overheard that bit of coded condemnation a thousand times, it was in the air, part of the culture, like the infamous and insidious  "Bless Your Heart" that also precedes a take-down.

                    The same culture that I'm reminiscing about for you also happened to disapprove VERY strongly of suicide in the case of parents with kids still at home and they didn't hesitate to say so.  

                    So when I saw you "young-lady'ing" that 46-year-old woman in this context, that's what I feared I might be seeing.

                    I had an impulse to ask--

                    and if that's indeed what you were implying, then I wanted to, well, defend her right to be spoken of as an adult. At the least.

                    "How sad to throw away her life at only 46, with young kids yet to finish rearing" is how you are putting it now, which is not the least bit disrespectful -- thank you for clarifying

                    We are in complete agreement there, of course

  •  Terrible. (6+ / 0-)

    Some prank.

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:49:01 AM PST

  •  Kate And Diana (0+ / 0-)

    I could understand Diana being thrust in the limelight with her  eyes wide shut ,But Kate has  lived on this earth , knowing the toll it took on Diana, she has a right  to her privacy ,just like every citizen in the world ,but she  is not a ordianary citizen,only thing i  like about the British culture  is the way they use thier  fork and knives,  so proper

  •  This is awful! (8+ / 0-)

    And God damn those two Australian disk jockeys who thought this would be a cute trick to play.  Actions have consequences--in this case very sad ones.

    I hope that poor dead woman haunts their dreams until the end of their lives.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:19:05 AM PST

    •  It was tasteless and mean. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ExStr8, raincrow, twigg, Ahianne, marina

      But I can't say that there was any reason for the disk jockeys to expect this outcome.

      That's always been my problem with pranks. I really dislike them, because we don't know who we're hurting or what their lives are like or how they'll react.

      I mean 99 percent of the time, the person would have been embarrassed and upset and moved on along with the rest of the world. But then there is that rare time it all goes wrong.

      www.stacysmusings.wordpress.com

      by Magenta on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:26:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But your 99 percent comment is the point (6+ / 0-)

        This station has a history of such calls. They aren't unique in that way. But holding people up to mockery before the whole world is going to inevitably lead to such a tragedy. This station isn't the whole problem, but they are damn sure part of it.

        "I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth." --- Bill Hicks

        by voroki on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:00:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lineatus, vcmvo2

          This was not a question of if but of when the tragedy would come.

          A winning campaign? You didn't build that...

          by SilentBrook on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:09:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think we agree. (0+ / 0-)

          I don't like pranks. I don't find them funny. I don't find them kind. I don't listen to the kinds of radio stations that do this.

          On the other hand, in fairness, a lot of people think this sort of thing is just harmless fun. I don't know that it's ever harmless, but I can't say they could in any way predict this outcome. It's a strange one.

          www.stacysmusings.wordpress.com

          by Magenta on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:39:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah we do I wans't criticizing. I think alot of (0+ / 0-)

            the problem is the people doing this so called pranks make their living as public figures and fail to realize that people who have ordinary jobs may find this sort of public mocking really distressing.

            "I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth." --- Bill Hicks

            by voroki on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:18:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I am of two minds on this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arizonablue

    The privilege the Royal Family maintains to this day in Great Britain is something astonishing.  They are the .00000001% of their society.  The esteem with which they are held is extreme and not unlike the Roman Catholic Popes or Evita back in the day in Argentina, or even extreme historical worship of those at the very top of their societies - such as Cleopatra, Alexander the Great and others (some were considered gods by their people).  To do this in a modern social democracy is kind of striking, in my view.  I know even socialist countries like Finland and Denmark and others do have Royalty still - but they are not idolized like the British Royalty (Yes I know many Brits want the Royals shut down).  

    France long ago did away with Royalty - Versaille belongs to the people.  France is, in my opinion, a model society in terms of the social safety net, protections for the citizens & consumers, good government, corporate taxes at an appropriately high rate - as well as rich individuas paying far more in taxes.  They also have an ideal healthcare system that even provides post-natal in home instruction and help fwith baby care and nurturing as well as Dr. Home Visits!

    If I were a British subject I would be opposed to the lavish lifestyle of the Royal Family.  I do not see the merit nor understand the importance of idolizing them in any way.  They could downscale and still do their jobs as tourist bait or whatever.  The Queen or King could remain Head of State - but take a lesser role as a celebrity in British society.  That would endhance their dignity (remember Prince Charles wishing he were Camilla's tampon in a recorded phone call!).  

    Tone it down, British Royals.  Voluntarily scale back.  Less is more.  The Queen is a trooper.  William is going to be King.  Kate will be his Queen.  That will be a lavish time, I suppose.  All the gaudiness of olde England will be on display.

  •  This station has a history of such things and has (7+ / 0-)

    been censured on more than one occasion. This could potentially take the whole station down according to this guy.

    http://bretttechlawyer.wordpress.com/...

    "I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth." --- Bill Hicks

    by voroki on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:44:44 AM PST

  •  That makes me very sad. As an RN familiar (4+ / 0-)

    with hospital bureaucracy, I am skeptical about the hospital's claim that they were trying to help the nurse work through it.

    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

    by slouching on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:49:13 AM PST

    •  This nurse is not the one (0+ / 0-)

      who gave out confidential information.

      She just answered the phone.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:08:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  True, although (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook, twigg

        did you listen to the clip? I listened to it a few days ago on Gawker.

        The hospital probably had a phone protocol - only put someone through under specific circumstances (often the caller has to provide a specific password or numeric code.) From what I read online, that is a typical thing for hospitals to do when someone famous is staying there.

        In the clip the DJ calls and puts on a posh accent and says, "May I please speak to my granddaughter Kate?" The receptionist says, "One moment please" and puts her right through. The DJ didn't even say the full name - that was odd as well since there could have been some other Kate staying in the hospital.

        So it may be that she was supposed to ask for the password at that time, or in some other way verify the identity of the caller, but she got flustered thinking the queen was on the other end of the line and didn't do what she was supposed to do.

        But in the end it was not a big deal. The information that was given out was very general (she is sleeping and feeling a bit better or something like that). It all came off as pretty silly. It is very sad for someone to commit suicide over this.

  •  Shock Jocks in America - Beck and Limbaugh (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    daveygodigaditch, exterris

    Shock jocks became popular many years ago, and much like Conservatism, it quickly became clear that the only way – oir at least the easiest way – to stand out from your shock job competitors was to be more shocking. Ann Coulter (when she has a new book out), Michael Savage, and the entire run of nasty radio pundits consider themselves shock jocks.

    Like, presumably, the Australian jocks, they act instinctively, doing what they do without regard for the people they can and do hurt. A certain percentage of the public loves it.

    Limbaugh and Beck often excuse what they do by saying they're entertainers. Limbaugh's first book, instead of being a polemic, was a recital of his career as a radio "personality" – as if anyone gave a hoot. It told of his firings and promotions, and so on, without much about politics at all.

    While promoting idiocy they do so very much with their eye on their careers. Money, fame, ratings – those are the things that occupy them.

    Do they believe what they say? That's the question, though it's not one that concerns them too much. I think they judge the beliefs they promote by how much it will help their career. When you're making stuff up, you usually know you're making stuff up.

    There are exceptions. Sean Hannity, for example, is blatantly ignorant and probably stupid as well. He is an empty glass that smarter people fill.

    But Limbaugh and Beck think of themselves as show biz types. Beck even does the costume thing for his skits and book covers (covers that, by the way, baffle some of his readers – what's with that Nazi uniform things?)

    But most shock jocks are so self-centered that they rarely, if ever, think of anything except in terms of their career.

    But along with the shock jocks there is a bigger problem: the people who listen to them. Most, I suspect, are Conservatives, and this applies not only to political shock jobs but the shock jock comedy teams, etc.

    And there is the problem of consequences. The death of the hospital receptionist in England may be, likely is, an example of that. The Conservative disregard for others is destroying the moral fiber of countries around the world, and shock jocks play a significant role in that destruction.

    A Southerner in Yankeeland

    •  Bullshit! (0+ / 0-)

      You can't pin someone else's issues on a joke. Nor can you blame entertainers for others behavior. People have to stop blaming their lack of whatever because of some joke or person with a microphone.

      People need to put their adult pants on and grow the fuck up.

      •  Of Course You Can (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        exterris
        " Bullshit! You can't pin someone else's issues on a joke. Nor can you blame entertainers for others behavior. "
        Of course you can. Humor that also belittles, humiliates, degrades, and incites is as affective as the same sentiments expressed without humor.

        You can incite a riot with speech that is also funny, and you can push almost anyone too far with belittling humor.

        Though I'm a big believer is dismantling bozos with humor, busting bullies with put-downs, and ridiculing silly political positions with mockery, those techniques are used against people who can stand the heat.

        There are certain guidelines.

        One doesn't attack someone for something they can't do anything about. You don't make fun of someone being in a wheelchair. You can make fun of a belief they express.

        One doesn't attack the weak or defenseless.

        A person may be treated as they treat others. A bully can be bullied, and interrupter may be interrupted, and so on.

        Conservatives revel in the opportunity to break all three guidelines because they are amoral and because they regard "winning" as the only measure of behavior.

        Most speech is generated with the thought of getting a reaction of some type ("Where do I sign?" "I love you, too" "Really, I didn't know that." "You're impressive.")  An entertainer speaks for laughs or, if you're like George Carlin, laughs and insights and maybe as a provocation to action. But others, such as the Beck and Limbaugh and Coulter people I referred to above, speak to persuade, though they may think of themselves as entertainers.

        A Southerner in Yankeeland

  •  this was a screwup by the royal family (6+ / 0-)

    I am a nurse, and well aware of the severe prohibition on release   of confidential information. In USA it's codified into "HIPAA"

    Because I live in Hawaii and I am findable on the Web, I once got a phone call from a Fox affiliate TV station asking if I somehow knew anything about Rush Limbaugh, back along when he was hospitalized here. I snarled at them and hung up. (i didn't know anything anyway but would never have told, even if it were Rush Limbaugh for whom I have no particular respect).

    having said all that, the royal family should have had a code word, or a go-to person who represented the family, or some such. and it should have been made crystal clear with the staff. I am quite surprised that they would not have already done this, given a lifelong dance with the media. and everyone at the hospital should have known.

    the celebrities I have dealt with in th epast, were acutely aware of the effect they had on people around them and often went to great lengths to emphasize their normalcy.

    The problem with caring for any celebrity is when you allow your own reverence for, or respect for, the person receving your care, to get in the way of how you would normally act or what you would normally do. Even the Queen of England has bodily functions.

    "I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she (Christina Taylor-Greene) imagined it." President Obama

    by guavaboy on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:09:30 AM PST

    •  Exactly. Because of HIPPA (0+ / 0-)

      I have never been able to call in and receive information about a family member.  I even had a out of town family member accuse me of blocking information about our grandmother because the nurses wouldn't tell her anything over the phone.  They just told her to talk to me the POA.  

      While I haven't been following this story because I don't give a darn about another country's royal family, I wonder if they ever made an official statement about the prank.  Or was there a pending or threat of a lawsuit or something? In an ideal world it would have been great if the royals stepped up and said it a successful prank and the nurses were at no fault.  Or doing something ala President Obama where he let's the little guy know it's going to be fine.  I hope they make a statement because the prank involved two nurses and one is dead.

    •  I've had to take a HIPAA course and agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GoGoGoEverton

      to its terms in writing, even though I found it to be common sense and something I would have respected even if it didn't exist. But then I tend to be more cautious--some might say even paranoid--about such things than do many people I know, both by nature and by personal experience.

      But I think it's less the royals' fault than their security apparatus and the people who run and work it. And, perhaps, the hospital too, since it needs to have strict security precautions in place to guard against all illegitimate requests for patient information, including ones not involving VIPs.

      There was a screwup, and perhaps it was partly the nurse's, but the main fault here lies in these others, whose job it is to safeguard such information, as opposed to the nurse's, which is to safeguard her patients' well-being. Her family may well have a valid cause of action against both.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:51:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So it's the Royal Family's fault that someone (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jabney, vcmvo2, Fast Pete

      deceived a nurse on purpose into giving out personal information about a patient in hospital? Just so I understand correctly? Like it's their job to protect people from assholes and themselves?

      •  they should know the drill (0+ / 0-)

        what I am saying is, the royals are the ones who have dealt with this all their lives, they should have had a policy in place and followed it. the royals are the ones who get followed by the papparazzi. here, they made it easy for the assholes from Oz.

        this could have been avoided by use of a code word or a designated spokesperson or some such.

        dating waaaaay bac in my own career I have had celebrity patients and this woudl have been standard protocol.

        surprised that the royals did not already have a system in place.

        "I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she (Christina Taylor-Greene) imagined it." President Obama

        by guavaboy on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:10:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  If the press wasnt obsessed with the Royals this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, twigg

    tragedy wouldnt have happened. Those prank callers should be hold accountable, its no longer a joke when nobody is laughing.

    What a twisted mind comes with the idea to call a hospital to get access to confidential information and call it 'prank'?

    Im not a fan of The Royals but Kate Middleton also deserves privacy pregnant with a Throne heir or not.

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:40:47 AM PST

  •  I dont think this is appropriate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaurenMonica

    I know this won"t be a popular opinion but this is just wrong
    First of all I saddened to hear of this nurses death
    but this isn't the Daily Mail....if this is how this site will be for the next few months then I'm checking out. This sites popular diarists are stepping into dangerous territory with the obsession with this family. It won"t be long before we see front page baby bump watchers and the like.
    Maybe this wouldn't have happened if people just stopped following this family"s every breath and move?

    Leave them alone, treat this family just like all of the other (more stable, more dignified, more "interesting" if you like history) monarchies (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, The Netherlands).

    BTW, I studied abroad in Denmark and The Netherlands this year. They don't act like this family at all and their subjects don't worship the ground they walk on either. The pomp and circumstance as well as the titles that reek of class and racial stratification are nowhere to be found in the great country of Denmark.

    Lastly, I know this comment which is sure to be HR'd into oblivion will garner insults but I welcome them. This diary is sure to get 600+ recs and 200 comments, recommended, community spotlight, etc meanwhile....someone who writes a diary about their personal story and how it relates to the voting down of the UN Disabilities treaty gets knocked down the recent diaries list

    Romney = Nixon without the sweating problem

    by YoungArizonaLiberal on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:36:29 AM PST

    •  I don't think there's much danger of us going All (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, twigg, Melanie in IA

      Royal, All the Time.  The only other story I'd seen about the royal pregnancy was using the story as a way to get out information about a dangerous condition for pregnant women.  So, basically, a story focused on health care - which it seems like you'd approve of.  And this one is about the consequences of excesses in media behavior.  Neither of them strike me as indicative of site-wide obsession with the royal family.

      It sorta seems like you didn't really read either diary, just jumped in to make the point you already wanted to make.

      •  I read both (0+ / 0-)

        The first story DID focus on the health issue and since I'm going into Obstetrics and Gynecology, it was an issue of interest to me...but do you remember how the diarist began the diary? Do you remember the title? It was a clear effort to garner attention using Royal (Tory) framing to get people attracted to the diary which they did not need.
        This diary is not about the excesses in media behavior, read it again.
        You don't know anything about me lineatus, but thanks for the response anyway...

        Romney = Nixon without the sweating problem

        by YoungArizonaLiberal on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:10:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You are over-thinking this (0+ / 0-)

      It was news that was likely to be of interest to this community, as indeed it proved to be.

      We are not in any danger of becoming the Huffington Post.

      It does seem that your last paragraph was about as accurate as Gallup's polling :)

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:25:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this diary, Twigg (0+ / 0-)

    I have been feeling heartsick about this. I'm sure that I'm not the only person on this site who found themselves remembering some long-past mis-step that filled us with a sense of mortification, making us want to disappear rather than live with that feeling.

    Who can know what this nurse felt? None of us. But I know that I've felt overwhelmed by disproportionate feelings of self-loathing for letting someone down, letting some situation go bad, or failing to do more or better.

    All tht came back to me, just reading about the incident. As tragic as her death was, what's more tragic in a way is that this nurse apparently took all the guilt upon herself, while the witless pranksters relied on the usual 'nobody could have foreseen this' defense. Someone could have foreseen it. Someone with a compassionate heart.

    Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it... in summer school.

    by cassandracarolina on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:10:52 AM PST

  •  nurse did nothing wrong (0+ / 0-)

    Here's the entire conversation between the DJs and the nurse:

    DJ: “Hello Dear, Can I please speak to Kate, my granddaughter?”
    Nurse: “Yes, just hold on ma’am"
    And then the nurse transferred the call.

    She was never even told anything about this being the queen.  If she did think about it, she could assume that it was Kate's own grandmother.  More likely, she didn't even think about who was calling, and why should she?  She just transferred the call to the nursing station, as a receptionist would ordinarily do.

    There are scores of potentially more humiliating pranks played by the media every year, from Candid Camera type shots to Jay Leno asking people dumb questions on the street. It's tragic that she killed herself, but I can't join those who try to lay the blame on the DJs.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site