Did Radio DJs Kill Kate Middleton’s Nurse?

The Christian Diarist ^ | December 8, 2012 | JP

[CHRISTIAN DIARIST]

Once upon a time I was an aspiring media professional. My very first foray into the business was as summer newspaper intern with The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Near the end of my internship, I was given an assignment that haunts me to this very day.

I was told to go out to a Cleveland suburb where a shooter was reportedly spraying bullets in a residential neighborhood.

When I arrived at scene, police had cordoned off the block where the shooter – a troubled 17 year-old kid – was holed up in his house. After what seemed like hours, but probably were more like minutes, a SWAT team stormed the house.

I expected an exchange of gunfire, but there was none. Then paramedics were summoned to the house, where they removed the lifeless body of the kid, who, it turned out, had turned the gun on himself.

It shook me to my very core. Not the least because the deceased was only two years younger than I was.

But as I learned in J-school, I had to get to story; I had to interview witnesses.

So I approached the young man’s family, which had huddled behind the police cordon, along with neighbors that had been evacuated.

They were near hysterical. But, still, I asked them if they had anything to say to the newspaper.

They looked right through me. And I didn’t blame them. Because I intruded upon them at a time when they should have been left alone with their grief.

I was reminded of that experience when heard the tragic story of Jacintha Saldanha, the nurse who worked at King Edward VII Hospital in London, where expected mum Kate Middleton was treated this week.

Jacintha was so traumatized by a hoax played on her by two oh-so-clever Australian radio jocks – who pretended to be Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles calling for Kate – that she killed herself yesterday.

My heart breaks for the deceased nurse and her family.

The tragedy confirms to me what I have learned during a media career of more than two decades: Many of those who work in print, digital, radio and television are closer to the prince of this world than to Christ.

Their God-lessness informs their approach to mass communication. If they can put something in print, or over the airwaves, that creates buzz, that attracts readers or listeners or viewers, they’re good to go with it.

Even if it causes a poor nurse so much despair, she finds her life no longer worth living.

[chris37]

No, fraud is a specific crime with clear definitions.

Giving advice is not. Givng bad advice is not. A prank phone call is not.

You are offering examples of crimes and relating them to situations that are not crimes.

In the example of giving advice to a person, the resulting decision made is still the ultimate repsonsibility of the peron making it, and that person will bear the consequences or fruits if any, and not the advice giver.

In the example of the Nigerian scam, the scammer certainlly committed fraud and may or may not be arrested and charged for such, but the person who gave away their money in the hopes of gaining more money is responsibile for giving away their money, and they will bear the consequence of that decision.

Because another person successfully exploited the known human flaw of greed, that particular crime could not have proceeded further without another participant who decided that it would proceed further, and that participant is responsible for that decision at the point in time that it was made.

[Joe 6-pack]

Again, we're skipping back and forth between "legal," and "moral."

I never said giving bad advice was a crime, but would you agree that if it was given deliberately with the intent of steering somebody the wrong way, that it's immoral?

Would you agree that when a person trying to make an informed, correct decision comes to you for advice, you have a moral obligation to give them the best you see fit? Would shirking a moral obligation be immoral?

You asserted that people are responsible for their decisions. In this I concur, but I also recognize that decisions are not made in vacuums. I'm in my mid 40's and to this day, I can say that many of my good decisions are made because of the values instilled in me by my parents. I would suspect that had they abdicated their parental duties in my upbringing, I would probably make many more poor decisions than I do. Of course, I am not just a product of my parents, but also my schools, my military experience, my personal relationships, books I've read, my civilian work experience and my own personal drives, impulses etc. All those play a role in the decisions I make. That's not to, in any way, dodge responsibility for my decisions and the consequences thereof; I own those.

While we all own our decisions, we should also be cognizant that we influence the decisions made by others, sometimes very directly (as in the case of solicited advice) and sometimes remotely. We can never know how, when or to what degree we might influence others there is something to the notion of, "leading an exemplary life," so that even when we unknowingly influence another's decision(s), it is for the best. In cases where we know we will have direct influence on others I don't see how one can not feel a moral obligation to make our influence as positive as possible.

[chris37]

We are skipping back and forth.

Legally, they are not responsible for her actions, I believe that much is obvious.

Morally...well that is an area that is more gray. Many factors apply there. Are the DJ’s moral people? One could argue that perhaps they are not, or that they are less than moral, because the very act of playing a prank on someone is essentially making a fool of someone so that the pranker and any audience of the pranker may laugh about it at the expense of the fooled.

Furthermore, who here is going to hold them accountable for any such moral shortcoming? We do not have a morality police. They may hold themselves accountable. You know, they may look themselves in the mirror and say perhaps I did not envision this outcome, and had I, perhaps then I would have chosen a different course. But they may also not do this, and in a way they would be right to, because personally speaking I believe the nurse’s course of action was extreme, not the response of most people to the same circumstance, and likely the result of something along the lines of insanity.

I would also agree that the Lord can choose to hold these men accountable for being less than moral here, but what punishment do they actually deserve? The Lord should not hold these men accountable for her death, because they did not cause her death.

I can appreciate your distinction between morality and legality, but I do not know what’s to be done of it. If we lived in an ideal world, then all people would be nice to each other all the time, and no one would commit suicide regardless of any circumstance, but that is not the world we live in at all.