Prank Royal phone call causes nurse to commit suicide

[Kristie]

I called women ma'am when I answered hospital phones. I wasn't expecting calls from royalty though. Just common courtesy.

That's because it's an american word.
They don't use it here.

And I say a few things that have rubbed off on me from my British buddies round here.

[mistermack]

I called women ma'am when I answered hospital phones. I wasn't expecting calls from royalty though. Just common courtesy.

That's because it's an american word.
They don't use it here.

And I say a few things that have rubbed off on me from my British buddies round here.

When I grew up, maam was only said on cowboy tv programs and films.
There was gunsmoke, and cheyenne, and the Lone ranger etc.

I have no idea where the queen got it from. People call her maam because that's what the palace tell everyone to call her.
Nobody calls anybody maam in britain apart from her.
Maybe she's a fan of cowboy films.

[odysseus]

It was foreseeable that someone could face disciplinary action if the prank succeeded, up to and including termination.

Yes, but it wasn't foreseeable that some woman would top herself over a prank.

They are 100% to blame.

... for initiating the prank, yes. For the eventual outcome, not really...

Whether or not protocols should have been more effective is another story, but has nothing to do with where blame lies.

If effective protocols were established and were followed adequately with regard to patient confidentiality then those DJs would not have got the info they did and the nurse would not have felt that much 'shame'. So I would say there is some blame there too.


FWIW that's just my opinion, and I have no interest in changing anyone else's mind....

[Cormac]

That still sounds like utter nonsense to me. They did not set out with the foreknowledge that they would cause someone 'damage' and I don't accept that they did cause said 'damage'. The application of the 'eggshell skull' common law in this instance seems to me to be absurd in the extreme. Before I continue, however, I have to ask you to define how their actions were 'reckless' (with a suitable legal definition of reckless if applicable) and what this 'damage' is that they supposedly caused so I don't start arguing down a blind alley.

I have given a definition of reckless. It is a term central to the Tort of Negligence. In effect it refers to where a person proceeds with an act that is likely to cause damage to another person.

They did know that damage would accrue, or at least they should have. It is clear that anyone who fell for the ruse would be subjected to disciplinary action. They proceeded regardless. That the ultimate damage accrued may have been more serious is not a mitigating factor.

[Cormac]

You can tell by the first nurse saying "maam" that they had been told what to say if the queen phoned.
And the fact is that both nurses were taken in. So all this hindsight of saying that they shouldn't have fallen for it is crap.
You don't know what they had been told, or what they were expecting.

They should have been given a proper procedure, not forced to decide what to do on the spot. They are nurses, not palace officials.
I'm sure they know exactly what to do for normal patients, but this was something completely outside their training.
Yes, if they'd treated the "queen" like anybody else, they wouldn't have come unstuck.
But you can bet that they were told that these royals had to get what they wanted in everything. And that's what they did.

[Cormac]

It was foreseeable that someone could face disciplinary action if the prank succeeded, up to and including termination.

Yes, but it wasn't foreseeable that some woman would top herself over a prank.

They are 100% to blame.

... for initiating the prank, yes. For the eventual outcome, not really...

Whether or not protocols should have been more effective is another story, but has nothing to do with where blame lies.

If effective protocols were established and were followed adequately with regard to patient confidentiality then those DJs would not have got the info they did and the nurse would not have felt that much 'shame'. So I would say there is some blame there too.


FWIW that's just my opinion, and I have no interest in changing anyone else's mind....

See "Negligence" and "Eggshell Skull". It doesn't matter how foreseeable a particular outcome was in advance.

The matter of internal protocols and so on does not mitigate the culpability of the radio station.

It does matter when it comes to negligence as regards their obligations to their employer and their obligation to create and maintain a safe working environment.

[Tyrannical]

Aside from the suicide, I wonder if a crime was committed by fraudulently trying to access confidential medical information?

[Kristie]

Aside from the suicide, I wonder if a crime was committed by fraudulently trying to access confidential medical information?

They only said they wanted to speak to Kate, then asked if she was doing alright. They never asked for medical info other than if she was doing alright, which I'm sure is legal.

[Cormac]

Aside from the suicide, I wonder if a crime was committed by fraudulently trying to access confidential medical information?

They only said they wanted to speak to Kate, then asked if she was doing alright. They never asked for medical info other than if she was doing alright, which I'm sure is legal.

Any statement whatsoever as to what her condition is, technically, is revealing information about her medical condition.

An attempt to solicit this, could indeed be found to be illegal.

[Kristie]

Aside from the suicide, I wonder if a crime was committed by fraudulently trying to access confidential medical information?

They only said they wanted to speak to Kate, then asked if she was doing alright. They never asked for medical info other than if she was doing alright, which I'm sure is legal.

Any statement whatsoever as to her condition is, technically, an attempt to eleicit information about her medical condition.

The hospital I worked at would give the general condition of a patient to anyone that asked, unless that patient chose to be a 'no information patient'.

[Tyrannical]

Aside from the suicide, I wonder if a crime was committed by fraudulently trying to access confidential medical information?

They only said they wanted to speak to Kate, then asked if she was doing alright. They never asked for medical info other than if she was doing alright, which I'm sure is legal.

Any statement whatsoever as to her condition is, technically, an attempt to eleicit information about her medical condition.

The hospital I worked at would give the general condition of a patient to anyone that asked, unless that patient chose to be a 'no information patient'.

I'm gonna guess that Kate was a 'no information patient'

[Kristie]

Aside from the suicide, I wonder if a crime was committed by fraudulently trying to access confidential medical information?

They only said they wanted to speak to Kate, then asked if she was doing alright. They never asked for medical info other than if she was doing alright, which I'm sure is legal.

Any statement whatsoever as to her condition is, technically, an attempt to eleicit information about her medical condition.

The hospital I worked at would give the general condition of a patient to anyone that asked, unless that patient chose to be a 'no information patient'.

I'm gonna guess that Kate was a 'no information patient'

Then the nurses were even more so in the wrong.

[Cormac]

Aside from the suicide, I wonder if a crime was committed by fraudulently trying to access confidential medical information?

They only said they wanted to speak to Kate, then asked if she was doing alright. They never asked for medical info other than if she was doing alright, which I'm sure is legal.

Any statement whatsoever as to her condition is, technically, an attempt to eleicit information about her medical condition.

The hospital I worked at would give the general condition of a patient to anyone that asked, unless that patient chose to be a 'no information patient'.

Your hospital was legally exposed. Only a minimal risk, but nonetheless, exposed.

I would not like a hospital to assume that I was ok with them even acknowledging that I was there, let alone revealing any detail whatsoever about my health or lack thereof.

[Kristie]

Your hospital was legally exposed. Only a minimal risk, but nonetheless, exposed.

I would not like a hospital to assume that I was ok with them even acknowledging that I was there, let alone revealing any detail whatsoever about my health or lack thereof.

They asked when you were checked in if your condition could be released. We could give the room number, room phone number, the unit the patient was on and their general condition, unless otherwise requested by the patient or their family. Pretty big hospital, so I'm sure they knew what was legal and what wasn't.

[mistermack]

Then the nurses were even more so in the wrong.

I don't think they were in the wrong at all. IF they were talking to the queen, they would have been doing the right thing.

IF they had been told that the queen gets treated just like any old relative, then they would have been in the wrong.
But that's not very likely.
But IF they were told to waive all the rules, and give the royals exactly what they want, then they were in the right.

As far as they were concerned, they had the queen on the line.
You don't just rely on nurses to weed out the genuine from the pranks. You put a system in place.