This past weekend, we saw the media – old, new, and social – trying to digest the indigestible. The death of Jacintha Saldanha, the British nurse who apparently took her own life after being caught up in a prank phone call from 2DayFM DJs Mel Greig and Michael Christian, is one of those stories that is so sad, so utterly pointless and bewildering, as to leave us gasping for something, anything, coherent to say about it.
There’s also something frighteningly random in how things seem to have played out: a simple, farcical prank call from the other side of the planet, and suddenly a 46 year old woman – a mother of two and from all accounts a dedicated and well-regarded professional – is dead. That she is appears to be, from what we know at this stage, the result of decisions that had nothing to do with her. No one set out to cause this, no one could have seen it coming, but the feeling remains that someone – Greig and Christian, Austereo management, the hospital, the media, the cult of celebrity itself – must be to blame.
Blaming, as it happens, is something the internet is very good at. Within hours, the 2DayFM Facebook page was inundated with angry messages. Twitter lit up with outrage. Some of the response has been decidedly sinister.
But among the calls for retribution there were others defending the presenters and expressing concern for their welfare. The DJs clearly didn’t intend for anything like this to happen. As Peter FitzSimons, writing for Fairfax points out, such pranks are an everyday part of the FM radio repertoire.
FitzSimons doesn’t stop to ask whether it’s ever OK to misrepresent yourself in order to make someone the unwitting object of fun, let alone whether calling a hospital to gain private information on a patient’s condition is ever acceptable.
But FitzSimons’ article is revealing in another way. He draws on his “garden-variety legal studies” to remind us that the test of negligence is “whether or not a ‘reasonable man’ might have had any expectation that their actions would have resulted in the kind of tragedy we have seen.”
Surely, we can’t accuse Greig and Christian of negligence given there’s no way they could have predicted this outcome?
But legal responsibility isn’t the same thing as moral responsibility. Courts have to make clear decisions, a practical purpose for which they need artificial rules and procedures. The “reasonable man” test provides a rough but workable way to delimit responsibility: if the consequences of our action are so remote that a reasonable person could not have predicted them, then we’re not answerable for those consequences.
That might be good enough for a courtroom, where we need final decisions about who is responsible for what. But without this artificial context, the boundaries of moral responsibility seem to be far more ambiguous.
Indeed, there is an uneasy grey area between moral guilt and complete innocence. Philosophers have been troubled by this ever since Bernard Williams coined the term “moral luck” more than 30 years ago. Strictly speaking, “luck” shouldn’t have anything to do with morality: since Kant, the standard view has been that you’re only responsible for what you do, or could have done but failed to.
Yet in fact, it’s alarming just how much of what we praise and blame people for depends upon factors beyond their control. We condemn the coward, but no-one willingly chooses cowardice. We regard the drunk driver who kills a pedestrian as more culpable than one who doesn’t, even though it’s only random chance that separates the two cases. We tolerate, and indeed reward, an uneven and unearned distribution of talents. The idea that we’re only responsible for what we can control seems to be strained at every turn by our moral intuitions and practices.
And as Williams notes, there is a phenomenon of “agent-regret,” a sense that it would have been better if we had acted differently. Such agent-regret remains even when we know what has happened is not, strictly, our fault. There is, according to Susan Wolf, a “nameless virtue that urges us, as a matter of both moral character and of psychic health, to recognise and accept (to an appropriate degree) the effects of our actions as significant for who we are and for what we should do.”
Journalist Jane Hansen’s revealingly honest piece in the Australian illustrates the grey zone of agent-regret perfectly. It’s a sobering reminder of how unclear the boundaries between guilt and innocence, between culpable agent and victim of circumstance, often are.
That’s not what we want, of course. We want to affix blame and move on. We want to carve the world up into the innocent and the guilty and hand out their just deserts.
But we can’t. Think about it for more than a tweet-length and suddenly even our most basic ideas about the limits of responsibility fail us. Who is to blame? Are Greig and Christian to be pilloried or pitied? Can it be both? Neither? It’s simply indigestible.
Geoffrey Edwards
logged in via email @gmail.com
Upon hearing of these events, I recalled Camus' absurd reasoning:
"What sets off the crisis is almost always unverifiable. Newspapers often speak of "personal sorrows" or of "incurable illness." These explanations are plausible. But one would have to know whether a friend of the desperate man had not that very day addressed him indifferently. He is the guilty one. For that is enough to precipitate all the rancors and all the boredom still in suspension."
That this is "indegestible" is probably the most succinct description I have read. Sadly, blame seems easier than reflection.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Then again, the mere fact that publicly humiliating people is generally not that dangerous - because most of us are mostly pretty robust and much of the humiliation is really more of a mild kind of embarrassment - is not much of a justification for DJs making large amounts of money generating free entrtainment through the technique.
FitzSimons is being disingenuous, in a post-hoc kind of way. Such pranks may be endemic in the FM radio culture. Bashing people is endemic in skinhead culture. Running drugs and protection rackets is endemic in the bikie community. Does that make any of it okay?
The simplest solution to all of this is not to make childish prank calls.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Amongst the expressions of outrage, it's a pleasure to read such a cogent and well-reasoned article - thanks, Patrick.
'There are so many layers of meaning and interpretation here. Quite apart from the intent to cause harm, there is also the question of what the harmful action actually was.
Is "breaching hospital security" a greater evil if the person in hospital is a member of the royal family, rather than an ordinary citizen? Did the hospital management react to the breach differently because it was a royal? Is it moral to distinguish one person's privacy from another? Were the details given out by the nurse of such intimate significance to be undisclosable to the public?
Many of us may have taken a course of action which, had chance or the sequence of events fallen differently, could have cost a life - or at least caused harm to others. Are we all ready to be held responsible for those remote consequences? If we are, then only perfection will protect us. Or inaction.
David Arthur
n/a
Grieg & Christian have been foolish, to say the least, and have failed to think through the consequences of their actions. By what managerial oversight were they left with responsibility for broadcast content?
That said, I am as surprised as were Grieg & Christian themselves that their call wasn't handled by King Edward VII's PR department? By what managerial oversight was a naive worker left with responsibility for receiving such enquiries?
That said, I am as surprised as KEVII's staff relations department purports to be that the counselling that Mrs Saldanha received after the incident resulted in her death.
Would there be opportunity or need for a witch-hunt if she was still alive? Whose agenda is suited by her death?
Chris Harper
Engineer
@David Arthur,
"Grieg & Christian have been foolish, to say the least, and have failed to think through the consequences of their actions."
I'm sorry, but no. No one could have reasonably expected this tragic outcome, and it is not justice to blame Mel Greig and Michael Christian for what she chose to do. They didn’t kill her, nor did they contribute in any material way to her death.
Mat Hardy
Lecturer in Middle East Studies at Deakin University
Moral reasoning aside, I find myself more and more intrigued by the increasing propensity for anyone with a social media account to have the right to express "grief", "devastation" or "outrage" on behalf of someone they never knew existed five minutes ago. What is this vicarious trend for public mourning of strangers? Does it make one somehow a more visibly better person to join in?
Linus Bowden
management consultant
It is another example of hateful and resentful bourgeois "call out culture" gone viral. Best to slap the bitches at the source - the nauseatingly sanctimonious and censorious bourgeois who wants to control and censor all by this tedious victim concern-trolling.
Patrick Stokes
Lecturer in Philosophy at Deakin University
It's an interesting point Mat. I honestly don't know how much of it is genuine connection of a sort we simply never encountered before photography, video and now the internet, and how much of it is something more superficial than that. I suspect that the immediacy of media means that it *is* now possible to react with the same sort of moral response to a distant person as to one directly in front of you. I think this story, at least, genuinely seems to have had an impact on people; I know I reacted…
Read moreMat Hardy
Lecturer in Middle East Studies at Deakin University
It's not only an online thing either, Daniel Morcombe's funeral was televised live on TV in Qld and attracted thousands of mourners in the flesh, a good portion of whom would have had nothing to do with the family, the search, the charity etc. The Jill Meagher case was also amazing in its ability to attract grief and hate posts. I saw on the news then a woman and her circa 10 year old daughter crying their eyes out in front of the shop where the CCTV footage came from, itself submerged in flowers. I was struck by the idea of who would travel into town with their child to do that? And as we know, there were plenty of other missing persons cases at the same time, but it's as if the media maketh the mourning.
Ryan Struk
logged in via Facebook
It does seem like a strange compulsion. It certainly does no harm to one's public image to express grief. The hospital's PR and 2Day FM would have been criticised for *not* expressing grief and offering condolences (although that could simply amount to damage control). Perhaps individuals want to feel important and somehow involved in the narrative. Perhaps it's also from lack of ability to formulate any other opinion on the matter; it is easier to simply express moral outrage.
I find it somehow more disturbing in things like the Jill Meagher case which you mention, that in the same sentence someone can express grief whilst simultaneously call for the return of the death penalty for the perpetrator. They don't see any contradiction in that.
Mat Hardy
Lecturer in Middle East Studies at Deakin University
@Ryan Struk
Yes, there is also certain irony in band-wagoneering onto someone for the mental torture they perpetrated in a media prank and then tweeting that they should be hunted down and killed.
Who is more more morally culpable in inflicting mental suffering there?
Dan Smith
Network Engineer
Indigestible is an apt way to put it. Thinking in detail about these issues of agency, intention, consequence, chance, etc can get you quickly down the rabbit hole. A piece I read elsewhere compared the DJs' prank to the currently popular one from Brazilian TV, where hapless folk are scared witless by a screaming "ghost" child in a dark elevator. In that case, I find it much easier to see the case against the prank: The resulting adrenaline rush and sudden spike in heart rate could prove fatal to…
Read moreClara Ng
Pre-service teacher
The prank call was bad taste, but I wouldn't think anyone could have predicted this event to happen. Was the prank call and the suicide linked? Maybe, but we still don't know. How seriously "wonderful" that the media seems to know it all, and how sad it is that many of the public very, very naive to actually believe what the media publishes!
Read moreThe patient in question is no ordinary citizen. She is a member of the royal family (via marriage), and in the UK she is deemed as an important person. Should…
David Boxall
logged in via Facebook
It's intriguing to me that the vitriol is directed mostly at the two DJs. Their prank was recorded, vetted and approved by management and lawyers before broadcast.
So, who's to blame? Two young employees, doing what their media organisation has a history of doing, or the management who incited and approved their behaviour?
Is it likely that this tragic death is entirely attributable to a childish prank? Let's wait to hear what the inevitable investigations turn up.
Peter Hewson
Citizen
David, the gormless fifteen-year-old flogging fries at McDonalds is a 'young employee'. These people are adults, on a six or seven figure contract, with the choice to behave as adults (or not).
The fact that it may have been a childish prank to lie to the hospital staff is all the more reason to be less tolerant of adults who really should have known better.
Jack Arnold
Director
Well said David. It is time for Chairman Max Moore Wilton to face the music, accept responsibility for the disaster that 2DAY management approved, and resign his position as Chairman. This proper course of action would seem unlikely as his former employer was John Howard who had great difficulty apologising and could not bring himself to say "Sorry".
Then I am reminded of the eggshell skull manslaughter case where two persons got into a fight and one was knocked down, suffering a fatal cracked skull. The victim at autopsy was found to have a congenitally weak skull structure of which the assailant was unaware. The verdict was guilty. So, the lawyers in this present unfortunate case may be able to find a case of manslaughter along these lines.
Robin Bell
Research Academic Public Health, at University of Newcastle
You would have to be utterly clueless to honestly believe that publicly and entirely intentionally humiliating a woman before her family, colleagues and the world, both professionally and personally, would not cause any harm. You don't have to be able to foresee the exact nature or extent of the harm to be morally liable here.
Read moreSimilarly, you would have to be entirely naive to believe that pretending to be a family member to get private medical information about anyone from a hospital, and then broadcast…
Peter Hewson
Citizen
I wondered how long it would take for the bullies to be turned into victims.
"These poor kids have been used by a voracious and morally bankrupt commercial group. "
They are not kids; they are probably very well rewarded for this type of behaviour; they were the users not the used.
Yes others shoulder the consequences but they had a choice. I know the well-coached tears in front of the soft questions sought to turn the tables but media spin is not a substitute for responsibility.
As for whether the suicide, to the extent that it was a result of the call could have been forseen is an interesting question. Certainly, if the death was because of the fallout from the call (and the actual or feared consequeces) it would not be the first instance.
Although they may not have expected the consequences would it be acceptable if they said that "well we only expected that the nurse would just feel bad for what happened".
SmartDentist
logged in via Twitter
Totally agree with David.
Lawyers, who, knowing the consequences of a staff member breaching anyones confidentiality/privacy decided that this was an ok sacrifice to make for potential benefit of a radio station. It might have been legal but it was knowingly immoral.
And with regards to possible mental illness - the average person now knows that at least 50% of people have some mental health issue at some time - then the reasonable person must act in a way that recognises this as a highly likely and acts toward people accordingly.
David Boxall
logged in via Facebook
SmartDentist: "It might have been legal ...". Or not. The radio station in question is based in NSW. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the NSW Listening Devices Act criminalises recording anyone without their consent.
Blair Dodge
shelf stacker
I thought the call worked as an utterly inadvertent bit of investigative journalism. If it's that simple to access someones private medical information while taking the piss, how easy would it be for someone who isn't pretending to be the Queen, and who might have even more malignant plans than an Austereo DJ? The hospital drastically breached the trust of its patient and it's reasonable to hold them to account for this. Of course it doesn't need saying the woman's death is a tragedy (actually, this being the internet maybe it does...), but it doesn't mean the satirical prank isn't a worthy part of public discourse.
Michael Croft
logged in via LinkedIn
First world problem!
My morning cappuccino lacks froth and bubble.......
We have met the enemy, and she is us.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Ah yes another victim on the altar of our morning entertainment.
Can't blame the DJ's really ... how were they to understand that some unknown Indian woman raising a couple of kids and supporting an extended family back in India would find herself so humiliated and ashamed that she'd kill herself. She just took it all far far too seriously didn't she?
See it's difficult when folks who take nothing seriously are confronted by such seriousness, real people leading difficult small lives…
Read moreDaryl Adair
Associate Professor of Sport Management at University of Technology, Sydney
I wish to comment on what seems, from a distance at least, a failure to establish risk management protocols in respect of incoming communication to a patient. I have no expertise in this at all, but - particularly in the case of a member of the royal family or some other type of public figure - there ought to be a system whereby an incoming caller provides a password or code to establish their veracity as a family member or trusted confidante. The patient's doctor could liaise with the hospital to provide a list of persons who are approved to phone, and a password or code to provide additional security. None of this seems to difficult to either organise or manage. It would serve a dual purpose: enhance patient privacy and minimise the likelihood of gags or hoaxes. Now that I've typed this, someone will probably inform me that such a system is already in place in many hospitals ... if so, why not at the place where Kate Middleton was being treated?
Mat Hardy
Lecturer in Middle East Studies at Deakin University
I suspect that there were exactly such protocols in place, hence the staff members feeling like they had failed when they weren't followed. Not to mention the incongruity of the Queen personally dialling through a public switchboard to ask how a relative was doing.
Daryl Adair
Associate Professor of Sport Management at University of Technology, Sydney
Thanks for the comment, Mat. I assume you are right. But I don't recall this being discussed in any of the media reports or discussions (though there have been so many I may have missed it). However, the risk management protocols seem to be crucial: if they were in place and effective then the hoax would have been stymied. To that extent the hospital has failed its patient. No wonder the nurse who put the call through was so distraught. Not just a simple error, but a failure of protocol and process. Extremely sad situation.
Daryl Adair
Associate Professor of Sport Management at University of Technology, Sydney
From a story this morning: "Media and entertainment lawyer Michael Easton said the Duchess of Cambridge ... had grounds to take legal action under laws covering confidentiality." http://www.news.com.au/national/duchess-of-cambridge-could-sue-for-privacy-breach/story-fndo4cq1-1226534071864 This makes me wonder who the defendant(s) would be: the radio station, the hospital, or both? If there was a break of security protocol, my guess is that the hospital may be more culpable than the radio station. But I'm not a lawyer.
Melanie White
Registered Nurse, Academic
It's a small hospital. The nurse was relieving on reception in the early hours of the morning. A small hospital is unlikely to hire a second receptionist to relieve the main receptionist for a break on night duty - hence the nurse doing the relieving.
I don't know the protocols, but I would think that it is likely the switchboard person did have a protocol to follow. Perhaps the nurse was supposed to have read the protocol, but if she was only relieving for a short time, at around 5am, maybe…
Read moreDaryl Adair
Associate Professor of Sport Management at University of Technology, Sydney
Thanks Melanie. Your background as a nurse is very important here. It seems that there either were or should have been protocols to follow, and if proper checks had taken place then the prank would have failed. It will be interesting to follow what the hospital will now do to improve its risk management in respect of communication with patients (especially people of public prominence, such as royals). Proper procedures not only protect patients from unwanted public contact, they also protect nurses from the risk of hoaxes like the one we just witnessed, which had very regrettable consequences. As I see it, this has been a fundamental failure of hospital management to mitigate against communication risk. Obviously there is also the question, which you rightly raise, of culpability against the pranksters and the radio station. But this could have been averted by the hospital ensuring that all staff were made aware of, and observed, communication protocols in respect of patient privacy.
Mat Hardy
Lecturer in Middle East Studies at Deakin University
@Melanie White
I can totally see how it would happen in the early hours of the morning, perhaps at the end of a shift. And at the heart of this is that most people are decent enough to take things at face value and assume that every interaction they have is not a case of someone deliberately trying to deceive them.
If I am speaking to a real estate agent, I am on guard. If I pick up my office phone I will usually assume good faith.
David Arthur
n/a
KEVII seemed overly quick to instigate the attack on Austrereo, their first public statement including the giveaway line that Mrs Saldanha had received counselling after the breach.
My guess is that this 'counselling' took the time-honoured British form known as 'carpetting'.
So, is Mrs Saldanha a victim of journalistic stupidity, or of workplace bullying?
David Kenny
Journalist/Writer
I don't want to dwell on the sad outcome of this so called prank, but more to ask who at 2day fm thought it would be funny to call a hospital because a pregnant woman was admitted due to complications?
There seems to be a severe lack of accountability with Austereo being opaque about its processes and now the djs appearing to absolve themselves from any culpability because all they did was to record the segment.
Prank calls have been made for years but does anyone think it right to make a joke at the expense of someone's health, royal or otherwise?
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
"but does anyone think it right to make a joke at the expense of someone's health, royal or otherwise?"
Yes, me. Although I am not sure that this was actually a joke at the expense of someone's health. But my sensitivities are notorious crude and insensitive and I only come here to be educated on how the truly sophisticated, superior and elevated behave.
Read moreAlthough maybe Mr Kenny does have a point. Made we should abolish this thing called humor entirely? Or perhaps we could set up a committee…
Dave Hughes
Safety Consultant
Maybe I missed it but just where is the evidence that this woman tragically took her own life because of this prank. All the commentary I've seen makes the assumption that because she died shortly after the prank was broadcast that there is a causal relationship between the events which may or may not be true - it could all be just coincidence. If so then all this moral indignation, chest beating and gnashing of teeth while distributing the sackcloth and ashes could all be for naught.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Jack Arnold...
Max "the axe" Wilton has ended up making his money off Kyle Sandilands and this sort of trash???? This is where the fella's natural talents have taken him?
What an outstanding contribution this bloke has made to Australia and it's culture. Up there with his former boss really. But Max's legacy continues apace.
I just tried to track down the rest of the board on-line but I ran out of patience wading through the froth and bubble spewing out about Austereo. But I did discover that on it's home website SCA assures us that they are "Australia's leading media and entertainment company":
"We're dedicated to delivering First's (sic) in Entertainment Media Solutions."
Like new spellin' 'n grammer' n stuff...
Dumbing down anyone?
Guess thet's why there on rayjo but.
Brian Griffiths
Adj.Professor at Curtin University
General comments on this incident seem to me to provide a clear example of the different ethical positions that participants in the discussion have adopted, consciously or not. The utilitarians, or consequentialists, tend to attribute blame to the pranksters for this tragic outcome while the deontologist focus their attention on the intentions of the pranksters and are far less inclined to attach blame to the two involved. Very little has been said about the suicide of the nurse being such an extreme reaction to what occurred. I find it difficult to understand why a mother of two children would take her own life because her part in this prank.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Yep ... an extreme reaction ... too serious by half. Obviously something else going on there - obviously deeply depressed and vulnerable. Silly her.
And that's the problem Brian. This "whatever" mob - not the DJs they're just the delivery vehicle - but the folks who decide that Kyle Sandilands and being "outrageous" is a good way to make a quid. Folks like Max Moore-Wilton. They assume everyone is in on the joke - is tough and resilient - if not - well it's just collateral damage innit? And…
Read moreDaryl Adair
Associate Professor of Sport Management at University of Technology, Sydney
Dear Brian, the suicide was, I think's its fair to say, an extraordinary reaction to a prank. However, what is impossible to ascertain from a distance is the micro-context. Leaving aside the possibility that Jacintha Saldanha had a prior depressive condition or a family-related issue unconnected to the prank call, let's assume that the hoax itself was the spur to self harm. I appreciate that psychiatrists have already said that a very recent and singular event such as this is unlikely, in and of…
Read moreDaryl Adair
Associate Professor of Sport Management at University of Technology, Sydney
Further to my previous comment, which pondered how Jacintha Saldanha was treated in the UK, a recent news article stated: "after the prank was reported, there were calls for her [Jacintha Saldanha] to be sacked and insults hurled". http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/bad-call-only-the-beginning/story-e6frerc6-1226534817243 This piece from the Brisbane Courier did not specify who directed such sentiments at Ms Saldanha. But it does cast a different complexion on the story to what we have been hearing, which has focused mainly on the hoaxers and the radio station. Doubtless there are more details to come about what transpired in England itself.
Jack Arnold
Director
@Daryl Adair after Brian Griffiths:
I am reminded that the Courier Mail is part of News Ltd owned by that US citizen Rupert Murdoch. News Ltd is hardly a credible source on any matter having political overrtones.
Doubtless the Australian journalists are selecting their sources from the Internet & television such as Aljazeera & BBC World News, so there will likely be considerable filtering of facts, to suit the personal bias of the writer or the political strategy of the newspaper, before the general public 'hears' the news.
Duncan Smith
Journalist
Thanks Daryl and I agree with you, what happened in the aftermath is almost certainly key. My fear is that when information does come out the radio station, and sections of the Australian public, will latch on to any new emerging factors and seek to use it as evidence the call was, after all, merely a harmless prank when in fact it was wrong on so many levels. No-one with any intelligence or human compassion could not help but feel a degree of sympathy with the current discomfort of the two DJs…
Read moreDuncan Smith
Journalist
There seems to be a growing assumption in Australia that Jacintha Saldanha was named in the UK press prior to her tragic suicide. She was not. Her identity and picture only came out in the hours after she died. So to say she was subject to personal insults or calls to be sacked is not correct. Of course there was some negative reaction in the UK press to the embarrassing breach, that is surely to be expected, and questions as to how it could possibly happen. On the whole, however, there was sympathy…
Read moreDaryl Adair
Associate Professor of Sport Management at University of Technology, Sydney
Well argued, Duncan. Unfortunately, many concerned people - including the bloggers in respect of this Conversation article - are virtually compelled to speculate because, to be frank, we know too little about what transpired in England. Yet there are key questions still to be answered, as you have indicated. We can only hope that an investigation by British police uncovers what transpired after the phone call. We now know quite a bit about what prompted the hoax and so on. None of this will bring back Ms Saldanha, but of there are lessons to be learned then the fullest picture possible is needed, not just in terms of the actions of the DJs and radio station, but the hospital itself. How did they manage Ms Saldanha's sense of embarrassment? Did they seek to ameliorate it? What type of support was offered? Was Ms Saldanha assured that she was not in trouble? The aftermath of the hoax, whether we like it or not, is as important as the events that preceded it.
Jack Arnold
Director
Hi Duncan. Thank you for the local (UK) news watch. As stated below Australia has a very limited source of public broadcast news.
Perhaps you may be able to advise whether the UK media have speculated about any possible criminal charges arising out of this matter. Certainly manslaughter is appears possible under the egg-shell skull precedent.
Then the 2DAY offer of $A500K is a mere pittance for the family, a strategy to protect the 2DAY advertising income stream & totally inadequate damages for a working life shortened by say 20 years. After exchange rates are worked it amounts to about 320K pounds sterling, or only about six (6) years income by UK pay rates.
Daryl Adair
Associate Professor of Sport Management at University of Technology, Sydney
Dear Duncan, it now appears - if I can rely on media reports in Australia - that one of the three suicide notes left by Jacintha Saldanha "criticises" her employer. While I am hardly suggesting that the radio hosts or the station should be absolved of criticism and so on, this seems to reiterate my earlier point that we need to learn much more about what happened after the hoax (including how it was managed by the hospital). If Ms Saldanha was scolded, rather than supported by the hospital after the phone call, then that is extremely concerning. Of course, this is again merely speculation on my part, because we - the public - are not given full details. Hopefully the official inquiry will enable us all to better understand what happened. There are bound to be lessons from this tragedy for various actors: the radio station, radio hosts, the hospital, the nurses union, and so on.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Daryl,
There's a rather interesting piece at Independent Australia that is basically laying a large part of the burden of this at the feet of hospital management, and alleging that they gave this woman a rather hard time of it. And I'm sure that would be right... these ruling class toffs would not put up with being embarrassed by some Indian nurse - not where the Queen is involved.
What a dreadful ugly little business this all is. Not much innocence anywhere as far as I can see - other than her kids and family.
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/life/health/who-killed-jacintha-saldanha-part-two/
Daryl Adair
Associate Professor of Sport Management at University of Technology, Sydney
Thanks ever so much, Peter. I agree: not much innocence anywhere. Thanks so much for the link to the article in IndendentAustralia. The line of inquiry by Tess Lawrence is, in my view, much needed. It is now reasonably clear what happened in terms of the lead up to the call and during the call itself. What happened afterwards is opaque.