Lets get serious.
Was all the furore caused by the jaw flapping of a couple of arrested development juveniles, possibly augmented, by stalled frontal lobe maturation?
Who probably forgot to engage brain before putting mouth into gear?
Or the instinctive snapping turtle effect, from London, where they went belligerent, bellicose ballistic, over a harmless prank!
[The dead Nurse's husband seems to be extremely critical of the hospital's response?]
Simply because right royal blood was the target of this asinine obtuse attempt at humour?
Had the target been Smith or Jones, would the over the top reaction, been the same?
Or would Mrs Smith, Smythes-dale or Jones, be expected to, grin and bear it, laugh it off; or, simply ignore it with the very obvious contempt, such infantile jaw flapping deserves?
Perhaps a blood test might have revealed quite high levels of disinhibiting substances, or substance abuse?
In any event, can any sane person claim with any degree of surety or certainty, what was the thing that drove this poor woman, to this remedy?
The prank?
Or, the how dare you, such impertinence, right royal reaction to it; particularly, on the part of the hospital; and or, those who may have repeatedly "counselled" the lass, after she was already thoroughly humiliated, by her own innocent, naive, trusting lack of sophistication/judgement; and complicity, long after the deed and any harm ensuing from it, was already done?
Rhrosty

a worse problem than that of a few pranksters is the emptiness that we have built into a generation that would even considering topping themselves because some fool comments on facebook or social media. The indulgence defies belief.

What a sorrowful episode all round.

First a couple of empty headed smart asses, who go a bit too far, trying to be funny. Wouldn't it be nice if these people would stop trying so hard.

The poor nurse, who must have had more than a few problems, for such a minor thing to be the tipping point for her.

Then the family, who will never be the same.

Then the British press going too far by a factor of about 5, so relieved to point the finger at someone else, rather than have it pointed at them.

It seems to be a growing part of our media culture to “prank”. What we actually mean is someone with an advantage manipulates someone into doing something they would not normally do.

In such circumstances the perpetrator(s) must interrogate the law of unintended consequences. It is not acceptable to take the authority to prank without accepting full responsibility for the outcomes. This principle comes first.

Then we get to the second part, mitigation. This is where we all get to see what went wrong. In this case it remains speculation for the moment but you can immediately see where some people put the mitigation before the act, a good example is “oh well, nobody could have foreseen the outcome. Rubbish, what is actually meant is that nobody looked. Such pranks are perpetrated by the mentally immature, image hungry jocks.

Some can be very funny and I’ve had my share of laughs but they are very cheap laughs that satisfy a juvenile need for satisfaction of the immediacy.

A mature perspective on events like this is very simple, you should have thought about it first. Too late for some.

Hasbeen.
The idea that this prank went "too far' is wrong, I'm one of those people who believe journalists are about level in the food chain with child molesters but this idea they are promoting today that the presenters "went too far" is really beyond the pale, even for such lowlifes.
The prank succeeded in it's aims and went no further, suicide is NEVER anyone else's fault, the responsibility lies solely with the person who takes their own life.

Runner,
Wrong, people should be punished for bullying others but, as above,nobody can be held accountable for another person's actions including suicide, only for their own conduct in relation to that person.

Spindoc - this was a prank where no malice was intended. There are not many people out there who have never been the brunt of a benign practical joke and I'd wager about 98% of us see the funny side and have a laugh along with our 'tormentors'. The other 2% are a bit precious. No-one I know has topped themselves as a result.

It's different when 'jokers' do things that could cause foreseeable harm to the 'victim'- like pulling away a chair as someone is about to sit but even then more often than not the prank is accepted provided there is no adverse effect. However if the intent is to cause loss or damage to person, property, finances or reputation, it all takes on a different hue.

So looking at a wider picture: What about victims of crime? 'Intent' is always considered a factor in the prosecution and judging of a offence but the outcome for the victim is the same. The elderly woman who falls, breaks hip and arm and dies soon after is no better off because the thief who snatched her handbag and caused her to lose balance "didn't mean to hurt her". If he had punched her face and pushed her into the path of an oncoming truck she'd be just as dead, her relatives just as distressed. However there is no way the offender will be as severely penalised for the former scenario as the second.

If a victim of rape subsequently kills his/herself (which actually happens a lot) does that make the rapist guilty of murder? There would be a hellova stronger argument suggesting culpability than the case of 2 pranking radio jocks.

PERSPECTIVE please people! We will never know exactly why Jacintha Saldahna died as she did. It is a tragedy for her family and a sadness for those who knew and loved her but ultimately it was her decision, her action. I hope she has found the peace in death that was missing in life.

The point is that you do not play pranks at hospitals, a place where people are receiving medical treatment, and the hospital staff are there to adminster to the patients; and not to be the brunt of a childish prank!

I have not seen any comments which blame the LAWYER who approved the broadcast. We all know how good legal advice is especially in our Prime Ministers past association with Labor Union Funds.

"confidentiality" is taken very seriously within the health care sector.

This nurse would have been under enormous pressure by the Hospital bureacrats, it is mostly likely she would have been threatened with disciplinary action of some description, even possibly getting fired.

Tragic it is, and those who say it is wrong to prank a hospital are right. I do think, however, that the news media were very clever to point savage fingers and broadcast stories of widespread public outrage as quickly as they did. Just days earlier, they were publishing not-so-nice comments about the nurses who willingly gave information (trivial information, mind you) over the phone to callers of unverified identity. Seriously: she was claiming to be the queen, and they believed her?

There was a prank, then there was a scandal. Both the good folks at Austereo and the tabloid press should hang their heads in shame, though I guess the tabloids have a much wider audience and a much louder voice. They can make mountains out of molehills, then blame the moles for the mountains. They have that power.

JamesH,
We do not know yet if she was under presure from the hospital management. The hospital said before her death that the staff duped would not be repremanded, however I did see another comment that the nurses were due to have talks with management early this week.

Cetainly all the staff would be talking about the incident which I think would include some ridicule and nasty comments.

Then there was the intense publicity both in UK, Aus and India, so no doubt the nurse felt grossly humilated and wolud feel her professional failure had lead to a breech of patient confidentiality.

Of course the radio station was making the most of the coup and gave no thought that their actions would have an impact on the nurses duped. One does not have to be very bright to see that they could be in trouble. I noted in the interview the radio jocks said "don't blame us" but never mentioned any concern for the nurses before the death and are yet to mention any concern for the other nurse, who must be also humilated. I think the radio jocks tears was more from self pity.

Whether the hospital recognized any effect on the nurses is yet to be disclosed, and if so what support were they given.

It was revealed today that a note was left for her family so some more info may become available. The family apparently are seeking a full inquiry into all aspects.

Banjo,

beleive me what the hospital executive say publicly will be totally different to what happens within the walls of the office.

JamesH,
That may well be true but we do not know that at this time.

It could well be why she did not make it to the scheduled talks this week. The family are questioning the amount of support the hospital gave the nurses, who must have felt pretty demoralized by the whole thing. All the other staff were talking and probably sneering behind their backs, if not openly ridiculing them. Then there was the world wide publicity, extensive humiliation is hard to cope with.

Her brother said she was dedicated to her work and would be totally devastated and ashamed that she had been duped.

it seems she usually called home daily but did not call tuesday, wednesday or thursday. the family is due to make a statement soon so it may clear a few things up.

Let me support the words of JamesH by confirming that what the Hospital Management proclaimed to the media and what actually happened behind closed doors are likely 2 different scenarios.

The first words that came out of the Hospital Spokesman's mouth were virtually to deny any contribution to the stress the nurses would have been under - that no disciplinary action had been taken. My immediate thought was "Yeah! Right! Pull the other leg ...."

Anyone who has any experience in the Hospital industry would know