So do those Jerk Aussie DJs deserve to be fired?

[Guest Manny]

What if the DJs kill themselves now that they've been fired?

The fans must be held accountable. Those who listened to the radio station, and especially those who laughed at the prank!

[msj]

And the nurse that released the information probably has already paid for the release of information, my point is that those "DJ's" had the intention of hurting someone career wise, embarrassment etc...

Their intention is irrelevant.

Part of the nurses job is to ensure that private information remains private.

In fact, I wonder even if it was the real Queen phoning if the nurse should have divulged that information.

If my grandmother-in-law phoned the hospital asking about how I was feeling and if the nurse gave out information I would certainly make a complaint against the hospital for violating my privacy (but then you'd have to meet her to appreciate why I would react this way).

Does it say anywhere that members of the Royal Family had not called prior to this?

Once again, irrelevant.

Each time a client asks me to release information to someone I must ensure that I know who I am talking to.

If it is the spouse, no deal.

It must be the person directly.

It is your responsibility, but they held the responsibility to behave like human beings, not go out of their way to get to private information that they were not entitled to and not intentionally go out to harm another person's life(by this I mean livelihood, career etc...) which they did not do, they knew someone would be fired or disciplined one way or another and they went out of their way to commit the action that could potentially destroy someone's career and personal life.

The only person who destroyed her career is the one who violated any privacy rules. Oh, right, that would be herself.

These are supposed to be professionals and to be "tricked" so easily demonstrates that they are fully deserving of any discipline that came (or would have came) their way.

They did not do their jobs period.

I feel no pity for them, if they get fired and lose all sorts of career opportunities in the future thats fine with me, they didn't care about another persons wellbeing why should we care about their careers and wellbeing?

I don't feel pity for the DJ's either - it's their problem although I bet they will end up alright in time.

They have to deal with the consequences despite the fact that people like you are irrationally blaming them for something that is not their fault.

Edited December 23, 2012 by msj

[betsy]

Their intention is irrelevant.

Part of the nurses job is to ensure that private information remains private.

In fact, I wonder even if it was the real Queen phoning if the nurse should have divulged that information.

That might not be against their policy or the call wouldn't have been switched to the second nurse, and the second nurse wouldn't have divulged the information!

I don't know if the same rule would apply to the queen. The hospital would have to have a set of rules/policy for royalty - from what I heard, this is the hospital that the royalty go to.

Each time a client asks me to release information to someone I must ensure that I know who I am talking to.

If it is the spouse, no deal. It must be the person directly.

But we're talking about celebrities who are hounded by the media. These are not ordinary clients. That's why I wonder if these nurses were trained for such things - like how would you foil up a fraudster. Surely, the hospital's security would've thought of that likely scenario - what when they'd seen how Princess Diana was hounded to death.

Couldn't a simple password at least help? Banks do that if you want to phone in for information about your own account.

So I'm looking at the hospital, to tell you the truth. Perhaps that's why the first nurse had some resentments how this hoax with her was handled. Perhaps the blame was being dumped on her - the escape goat - and she knew how unfair that was. And it would be, if these nurses were not properly trained to handle scenarios like this!

The only person who destroyed her career is the one who violated any privacy rules. Oh, right, that would be herself.

The first nurse did not divulged any private information (from what I understand). The second nurse was the one who did, thinking she was talking to the queen.

These are supposed to be professionals and to be "tricked" so easily demonstrates that they are fully deserving of any discipline that came (or would have came) their way.

If these nurses were not trained properly how to identify a fraudster - then, it's not their fault. That would be the hospital's responsibility - to have well-trained staff - especially those that they assign to high-profile people.

It could very well be just a simple mistake in assumption. The first nurse forwarding the call, assuming the second nurse will verify the identity before revealing anything.....and the second nurse gave out information, assuming the first nurse had already verified the identity of the caller!

We don't know the full details. But we know one thing quite clear: we know the prankster did indeed phone fraudulently and duped these nurses.

I find it interesting that there are two nurses that got tricked into this. Granted the second nurse had put down her guard since she relied on the first nurse - if so - then they should learn from this mistake. They've got to re-evaluate their security protocol.

They have to deal with the consequences despite the fact that people like you are irrationally blaming them for something that is not their fault.

It is their fault! The whole event unfolded because of their so-called prank! For every action there's a consequence. What, would you say if - as a prank - you as an adult decided to suddenly pop up behind a 75 year old person and made him jump and terrified, and he suddenly had a heart attack....you say it's not your fault? You wouldn't know what could likely happen if you scare the daylights out of an elderly?

But they're not the only ones who could be at fault. Like I said, if the hospital did not properly train its staff, then it shows they lapsed in their responsibility not only to their staff, but also to their clients.

Furthermore, these DJs know what they're doing is wrong (and possinbly criminal) - unless they're complete morons! As you yourself confirmed, confidentiality clauses/privacy act is basically universal. It's not limited to medical issues.

Edited December 23, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

MSJ:

Each time a client asks me to release information to someone I must ensure that I know who I am talking to.

And how would you do that? Ensure that the person you're talking to is who he said he is?

[msj]

In my case it is easy - since the person is my client and I have met them at least once I know who I'm talking to.

If I were ever in doubt then I would likely ask some general questions about their kids (dependents) or other information that I would have on file and can quickly look up.

If that failed, I would simply ask them to show up with picture ID so that I can hand them the information and then blame this measure on "company policy" and "government privacy rules."

Now, in a nurses' case it is also easy.

Since you cannot verify a strangers' ID by phone you simply never give out information by phone.

You want to know something about someone?

Come on down with ID.

It really is that simple and that is why I do not feel sorry for the any nurse.

This is not rocket science.

It is easy to say no especially when your profession expects it.

[msj]

That might not be against their policy or the call wouldn't have been switched to the second nurse, and the second nurse wouldn't have divulged the information!

Once again, irrelevant.

All professionals should be monitoring the situation to ensure they are protecting the privacy of the people in their care.

Monitoring does not stop at any time.

When one nurse foolishly lets a call go through that does not justify the second nurse allowing her guard to drop and to divulge information.

I don't know if the same rule would apply to the queen. The hospital would have to have a set of rules/policy for royalty - from what I heard, this is the hospital that the royalty go to.

Yes, they are different over there.

I hope privacy laws around something like this would allow one to keep the Queen's nose out of someone else's privacy but who knows.

But we're talking about celebrities who are hounded by the media. These are not ordinary clients. That's why I wonder if these nurses were trained for such things - like how would you foil up a fraudster. Surely, the hospital's security would've thought of that likely scenario - what when they'd seen how Princess Diana was hounded to death.

If you are a professional, and if your profession and/or place of employment have privacy rules, and if your country has privacy legislation, then you bloody well better know how to apply those rules.

Ignorance of the law is a poor excuse for any citizen to use never mind for someone calling themselves a "professional."

Couldn't a simple password at least help? Banks do that if you want to phone in for information about your own account.

So I'm looking at the hospital, to tell you the truth. Perhaps that's why the first nurse had some resentments how this hoax with her was handled. Perhaps the blame was being dumped on her - the escape goat - and she knew how unfair that was. And it would be, if these nurses were not properly trained to handle scenarios like this!

I think it is fair to look at the hospital to see if they had policies in place to deal with whatever privacy legislation the UK may have related to this.

Sure, that's reasonable.

The first nurse did not divulged any private information (from what I understand). The second nurse was the one who did, thinking she was talking to the queen.

I don't know the policies of the hospital so I do not know to what extent either nurse was reprimanded and to what extent they should have been reprimanded.

Nevertheless, it is the second nurse worthy of a look over since she is the one who gave out the information in the first place.

If these nurses were not trained properly how to identify a fraudster - then, it's not their fault. That would be the hospital's responsibility - to have well-trained staff - especially those that they assign to high-profile people.

It could very well be just a simple mistake in assumption. The first nurse forwarding the call, assuming the second nurse will verify the identity before revealing anything.....and the second nurse gave out information, assuming the first nurse had already verified the identity of the caller!

As professionals they are supposed to know the rules and to apply them.

The first nurse allegedly ID'ing the callers is irrelevant.

The person who is divulging the information must know who they are giving information to. Period.

We don't know the full details. But we know one thing quite clear: we know the prankster did indeed phone fraudulently and duped these nurses.

I find it interesting that there are two nurses that got tricked into this. Granted the second nurse had put down her guard since she relied on the first nurse - if so - then they should learn from this mistake. They've got to re-evaluate their security protocol.

Is it illegal to make a prank call?

Why didn't either nurse apply any professionalism to this and get duped in the first place?

It is their fault! The whole event unfolded because of their so-called prank! For every action there's a consequence. What, would you say if - as a prank - you as an adult decided to suddenly pop up behind a 75 year old person and made him jump and terrified, and he suddenly had a heart attack....you say it's not your fault? You wouldn't know what could likely happen if you scare the daylights out of an elderly?

It is the nurses responsibility to not allow the information out to people who should not have it.

It is the second nurses' fault that this happened. Period.

But they're not the only ones who could be at fault. Like I said, if the hospital did not properly train its staff, then it shows they lapsed in their responsibility not only to their staff, but also to their clients.

Once again, if the nurses are "professionals" then they need to take professional responsibility for their actions (or inaction).

Why people allow this kind of individual responsibility to slip away - oh, it's not their fault, they were tricked! Tricked I say!

It's BS.

As a professional you are responsible to know the rules and to apply them responsibly.

Furthermore, these DJs know what they're doing is wrong (and possinbly criminal) - unless they're complete morons! As you yourself confirmed, confidentiality clauses/privacy act is basically universal. It's not limited to medical issues.

Once again you are placing the blame on them when it should squarely rest on the second nurse.

As a gatekeeper one should be expecting that people will try to trick you for a variety of reasons.

In my business it is usually family members who will play games (spouse who is going to initiate a divorce, children who want to keep tabs on their elderly parent supposedly for good reasons but usually so they can watch their inheritance are the two most common scenarios).

I have to be alert to all people - family, strangers, real fraudsters who want information to commit real theft, etc....

I can't just fall back on any excuse of "I didn't know I was being tricked" because I take my profession seriously.

I know the buck stops with me and I conduct myself accordingly.

That's called taking responsibility.

[betsy]

In my case it is easy - since the person is my client and I have met them at least once I know who I'm talking to.

If I were ever in doubt then I would likely ask some general questions about their kids (dependents) or other information that I would have on file and can quickly look up.

If that failed, I would simply ask them to show up with picture ID so that I can hand them the information and then blame this measure on "company policy" and "government privacy rules."

Now, in a nurses' case it is also easy.

Since you cannot verify a strangers' ID by phone you simply never give out information by phone.

You want to know something about someone?

Come on down with ID.

It really is that simple and that is why I do not feel sorry for the any nurse.

This is not rocket science.

It is easy to say no especially when your profession expects it.

That's easy for you to say. Your situation is not the same with these nurses. You deal with ordinary people - these nurses thought they were talking to the queen.

Would you say it's very possible that these nurses were not trained properly on how to field phone calls, and how to verify proper identification from a monarch?

[betsy]

Once again, irrelevant.

All professionals should be monitoring the situation to ensure they are protecting the privacy of the people in their care.

Monitoring does not stop at any time.

When one nurse foolishly lets a call go through that does not justify the second nurse allowing her guard to drop and to divulge information.

"Monitoring" is such a loosely usd word in this case....due to the title of the client involved. The nurses thought they were talking to the queen.

Yes, they are different over there.

I hope privacy laws around something like this would allow one to keep the Queen's nose out of someone else's privacy but who knows.

Thank you. You just admit that they are different over there. You don't know how their policy or protocol is in place or not....therefore, automatically pointing the finger at these two hapless nurses and judging them to be at fault - and basing it on your own experience at that - would be quite irrational.

Need I say more.

[msj]

That's easy for you to say. Your situation is not the same with these nurses. You deal with ordinary people - these nurses thought they were talking to the queen.

Would you say it's very possible that these nurses were not trained properly on how to field phone calls, and how to verify proper identification from a monarch?

If they are "registered" nurses then presumably they have been trained.

Perhaps the hospital should be double checking their credentials.

Assuming they were/are professionals they should know their duty to stay up to date on a variety of things that may touch upon their professional activities.

Your desperate attempts for excuses is rather funny.

[msj]

"Monitoring" is such a loosely usd word in this case....due to the title of the client involved. The nurses thought they were talking to the queen.

It is not a matter of who one "thinks" they are talking to.

They must know who they are talking to or face the consequences.

Thank you. You just admit that they are different over there. You don't know how their policy or protocol is in place or not....therefore, automatically pointing the finger at these two hapless nurses and judging them to be at fault - and basing it on your own experience at that - would be quite irrational.

Need I say more.

It's not irrational at all.

Canada has privacy legislation as does the UK.

I'm a professional as are/were the nurses.

Privacy and confidentiality of information and maintaining proper gate-keeping rules/protocols is something that has been discussed in our professions for at least the past two decades (if only because of legislation enacted in the 1990's in both countries).

The "burden" of being a professional is being a professional. It is our duty to care for our clients in many different ways and privacy/confidentiality has always been one of the most important ways.

Your desperation to seek out other culprits, excuses, and "reasons" for the second nurses' lack of professionalism is appalling.

For all we know, she may well have come to the same conclusion as I have: that she did the wrong thing, as a professional she should admit it, take her lumps, and then get on with her life.

As for the first nurse - well, who knows about her problems.

Edited December 23, 2012 by msj

[betsy]

If they are "registered" nurses then presumably they have been trained.

I'm not talking about nursing training!

I'm talking about training in fielding calls, protocol etc.., Being assigned to and dealing with dignitaries, celebrities and royalties involve a certain training in handling media or any scenarios that are likely to happen (similar to the prank that was done). How do you weed out calls? How do you qualify them? How do you know the pranks from the real ones?

Like, how would you diplomatically address a royalty inquiring about the private information of another person? How do you say "no" to the queen? ETC...

Perhaps the hospital should be double checking their credentials.

Assuming they were/are professionals they should know their duty to stay up to date on a variety of things that may touch upon their professional activities.

Your desperate attempts for excuses is rather funny.

You don't make any sense!

What credentials are you talking about????

Providing extra training that relate to your given duties is usually the responsibility of the employer! EVEN WALMART knows that! How many WalMart employees take safety training at their own expense???? YOU SHOULD know that! That's standard procedures in a lot of workplaces.

Edited December 23, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

It is not a matter of who one "thinks" they are talking to.

They must know who they are talking to or face the consequences.

It's not irrational at all.

Canada has privacy legislation as does the UK.

I'm a professional as are/were the nurses.

Privacy and confidentiality of information and maintaining proper gate-keeping rules/protocols is something that has been discussed in our professions for at least the past two decades (if only because of legislation enacted in the 1990's in both countries).

The "burden" of being a professional is being a professional. It is our duty to care for our clients in many different ways and privacy/confidentiality has always been one of the most important ways.

Your desperation to seek out other culprits, excuses, and "reasons" for the second nurses' lack of professionalism is appalling.

For all we know, she may well have come to the same conclusion as I have: that she did the wrong thing, as a professional she should admit it, take her lumps, and then get on with her life.

As for the first nurse - well, who knows about her problems.

Look, you don't know the full details....therefore, you cannot make a definite conclusion. Insisting that it's all the fault of the nurse is being irrational.

That's all I'm saying. We do not know. Yet. We have to wait for the inquiry result.

But what we do know for certain is that, these two DJs did make a prank call mis-representing themselves as the queen and fraudulently managed to get some private information. We do know that they were not coersced or forced to make that fraudulemnt phone call...and being adults, they knew what they were about.

That their action could cause some aggravations to one or more innocent parties - and could put someone's job on the line - did not deter these two from making the calls anyway. Prank call. In other words, all for the sake of a good laugh! And of course, ratings.

At someone else's expense!

AND what a costly expense it turned out to be! A life lost - children orphaned, a husband suddenly widowed, a hospital going through an inquiry - not to mention the cost of the inquiry!

And here you are insisting to point your accusing finger at the deceased - without knowing the full details about it. You've already made your judgement and branded her guilty of negligence. That's all I'm saying.

Hasn't the poor girl suffered enough??? All for the sake of a good laugh?

Edited December 23, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

It is not a matter of who one "thinks" they are talking to.

They must know who they are talking to or face the consequences.

That's why I want to know: were they properly trained to know? Was there some training how to conduct one's self if the inquirer happens to be a queen or a powerful authority? How do you turn down a queen or an official?

Was there any protocol in place - protocol plays an important part in dealing with royalties and dignitaries, you know - or any security measures/procedures that they have to follow when not dealing with the COMMON PUBLIC.

How do you tell a queen, "prove yourself madam. I want to know if you're an impostor or the real mcCoy!"

That two nurses easily fell into this prank makes me question about the training - if there were any at all, regarding a scenario such as this.

They may be registered nurses with other additional medical training up to their eyeballs, and maybe unquestionably professionals in the medical field - but that would not necessarily mean that they were professionals in handling security and protocol/procedures! Especially when dealing with the elite. UNLESS they were specifically given additional training to handle that part. That's what I want to know. Were there any training?

IF there was indeed training - with emphasis on the "if" - why did these two nurses fail it miserably? That's something the hospital has to re-visit and re-evaluate.

Edited December 23, 2012 by betsy

[Bonam]

How do you say "no" to the queen? ETC...

Like this: "No."

[msj]

I'm not talking about nursing training!

My training was mostly reading the CICA handbook and the Income Tax Act of Canada.

But that does not mean that I just gloss over my professional ethical code which talks about confidentiality and being "committed to acting in accordance with all applicable laws and professional standards" which would include knowing about and understanding privacy legislation.

I'm willing to bet that even professional nurses in the UK would have such expectations put on them.

I'm talking about training in fielding calls, protocol etc.., Being assigned to and dealing with dignitaries, celebrities and royalties involve a certain training in handling media or any scenarios that are likely to happen (similar to the prank that was done). How do you weed out calls? How do you qualify them? How do you know the pranks from the real ones?

This is exactly why privacy legislation is so important.

It is very simple - if you do not know absolutely for certain who you are talking to then you tell them you will not release any information.

IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

Like, how would you diplomatically address a royalty inquiring about the private information of another person? How do you say "no" to the queen? ETC...

You do what anyone should be able to do - state that under workplace rules and/or government legislation you are unable to provide anyone's personal and confidential information without having positive consent from the person in question, without having full proof of identification of the person requesting the information, and under full compliance with the privacy legislation of the UK, etc...

IOW - you state that Kate or William must first request such information before you will make any further comment.

You don't make any sense!

What credentials are you talking about????

Providing extra training that relate to your given duties is usually the responsibility of the employer! EVEN WALMART knows that! How many WalMart employees take safety training at their own expense???? YOU SHOULD know that! That's standard procedures in a lot of workplaces.

Once again professionals are expected to act in accordance with the laws of their countries and their own ethical codes.

Laws change and are introduced all of the time.

As a professional we are expected to keep up with such changes and know about them.

And, once again, it is not rocket science to appreciate that private and confidential information should remain P&C.

It is not like operating a telephone is very hard.

In fact, the advantage of the telephone is that it provides the perfect excuse - sorry, I can't release information to anyone who I am unable to identify.

Once again - this is not complicated. It is not rocket science.

Edited December 24, 2012 by msj

[msj]

Look, you don't know the full details....therefore, you cannot make a definite conclusion. Insisting that it's all the fault of the nurse is being irrational.

That's all I'm saying. We do not know. Yet. We have to wait for the inquiry result.

You don't know the full details either so on that score we are even.

But what we do know for certain is that, these two DJs did make a prank call mis-representing themselves as the queen and fraudulently managed to get some private information. We do know that they were not coersced or forced to make that fraudulemnt phone call...and being adults, they knew what they were about.

That their action could cause some aggravations to one or more innocent parties - and could put someone's job on the line - did not deter these two from making the calls anyway. Prank call. In other words, all for the sake of a good laugh! And of course, ratings.

At someone else's expense!

AND what a costly expense it turned out to be! A life lost - children orphaned, a husband suddenly widowed, a hospital going through an inquiry - not to mention the cost of the inquiry!

We also know that one nurse passed on the call to a second nurse and that the second nurse provided P&C information to someone she should not have passed it off to.

It is the (second) nurses' fault for this inquiry (and possibly poor training/procedures/testing at the hospital). She is the gatekeeper - she was not forced to give out the information. She gave it out willingly and very very unprofessionally and that falls on her and, possibly to some extent, on her workplace if it is determined that they did not have adequate rules in place.

These DJ's have done the UK (if not the world) a favour as it gives us a chance to remind everyone about how to conduct themselves when it comes to dealing with P&C information. I know I have discussed it with my staff.

And here you are insisting to point your accusing finger at the deceased - without knowing the full details about it. You've already made your judgement and branded her guilty of negligence. That's all I'm saying.

Actually, I don't point a finger at the first nurse.

All she did was pass a phone call through which is a fairly minor thing and only worthy of a minor reprimand should it have been let through when it should not have been let through (IOW - did the nurse do the right process of letting the call through? If not, then that's what the reprimand should be for - not following procedure).

It is the second nurse who I am talking about. She is the one who failed in her professional duty and she is the one who deserves a full professional reprimand for it.

She is an embarrassment to every other registered nurse in the UK and she should feel some heat for her failing.

Then she should pick herself back up and get back to work and conduct herself in a professional manner for her remaining years.

Hasn't the poor girl suffered enough??? All for the sake of a good laugh?

Well, the one who is dead is no longer suffering.

The second nurse - as long as she is reprimanded properly for her failure to keep P&C info P&C and for her failure to conduct herself in a professional manner then I don't have a problem with her going back to work.

What she did was terrible and unprofessional but she should be treated just like if any other nurse provided P&C info in an inappropriate (but less public way) .

Edited December 24, 2012 by msj

[msj]

They may be registered nurses with other additional medical training up to their eyeballs, and maybe unquestionably professionals in the medical field - but that would not necessarily mean that they were professionals in handling security and protocol/procedures! Especially when dealing with the elite. UNLESS they were specifically given additional training to handle that part. That's what I want to know. Were there any training?

IF there was indeed training - with emphasis on the "if" - why did these two nurses fail it miserably? That's something the hospital has to re-visit and re-evaluate.

It's funny how you accuse me of not knowing the details and yet you can make up all kinds of scenarios that absolves the second nurse of any culpability for what appears to be a professional error.

You make it seem like a person needs some kind of specialized training.

Here is a look at what the Canadian Nurses code of ethics says about P&C [PDF] on page 15:

2. When nurses are conversing with person receiving care, they take reasonable measures to prevent confidential information in the coverstation from being overhead.

3. Nurses collect, use and disclose health information on a need-to-know basis with the highst degree of anonymity possible in the circumstances and in accordance with privacy laws.

4. When nurses are required to disclose information for a particular purpose, they disclose only the amount of information necessary for that purpose and inform only those necessary. They attempt to do so in ways to minimize an potential harm to the individual, family or community.

5. When nurses engage in any form of communication, including verbal or electronic, involving a discussion of clinical cases, they ensure that their discussion of person receiving care is respectful and does not identify those persons unless appropriate.

Etc etc

I doubt that the nurses in the UK would have an ethical code that is all that much different.

Once again - THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

It is easy to tell someone "no, I can't share that private and confidential information with you because of privacy legislation and/or hospital protocols."

And yes, understanding P&C rules, laws and procedures is an important part of being a professional.

And when one makes a mistake by not following the procedures then one takes the reprimand.

It is really not a big deal.

Happens every year with my profession - it's just that it doesn't have the publicity so very few know or care about it.

[msj]

That's easy for you to say. Your situation is not the same with these nurses. You deal with ordinary people - these nurses thought they were talking to the queen.

I have dealt with a few provincial premiers in my time.

I also have no respect for the Queen so I do hold my former premier clients in a higher regard than I would hold her.

Oh, and while I was not the one who did this since I was on vacation at the time, but, yes, one of my staff did refuse to release information to the spouse of a former premier until she got permission to release such information.

Granted my staff person did not have a clue who she was dealing with as she was/is politically naive.

However, in our firm one of the principles that we stand by is, to be blunt, "we all poop the same" along with our other principle of "thou shalt not disclose private information unless you have been granted permission to do so..." so it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

After all, IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

Keeping information private and confidential is as easy as saying "no."

[betsy]

You don't know the full details either so on that score we are even.

No, we're not. You've judged the nurse(s) as being negligent. You've made your conclusion about her without knowing the full details.

I have not.

Edited December 24, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

Thoughts?

Since the DJs never got the consent from the nurses to air the prank, yes they should be fired, in addition for causing an international incident out of stupidity.

[msj]

No, we're not. You've judged the nurse(s) as being negligent. You've made your conclusion about her without knowing the full details.

I have not.

We already have enough information to be able to come to that conclusion.

Anyone who has listened to the nurse talk to the "Queen" knows that she did not even attempt to figure out if this person was the Queen.

We know that the information left her mouth and was heard by millions of people around the world.

Yes, there are details that need to come out as to how the nursing profession and that hospital can better protect patients' privacy but trying to scapegoat the DJ's like you are doing will do nothing to make registered nurses in the UK any more professional.

[msj]

Since the DJs never got the consent from the nurses to air the prank, yes they should be fired, in addition for causing an international incident out of stupidity.

Why do they need consent to air the prank? [ETA - Ok, I see that there is a law in Australia that may have been broken here]

Once again the incident is not their "trickery" but, rather, the second nurses' failure to act professionally and refuse to release information to a stranger over the phone.

Once again - IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE - if you do NOT know who you are talking to you shut up and say "no, due to privacy legislation I cannot provide you with that information.

Yes, it is really that simple.

Edited December 24, 2012 by msj

[msj]

Borrowing AW's link because it is easier than finding it again.....

Having another listen to this I do not see why it is as big of a deal as it is.

Yes, the second nurse still should be reprimanded for not protecting Kate's privacy.

A slap on the wrist and a course looking at her professional code of ethics would be in order.

That's about it.

As for the DJ's and radio station - apply the licencing standards and law in Australia and let the chips fall where they may. BFD.

Edited December 24, 2012 by msj

[betsy]

We already have enough information to be able to come to that conclusion.

Anyone who has listened to the nurse talk to the "Queen" knows that she did not even attempt to figure out if this person was the Queen.

Never mind the "we." YOU think you have enough information to judge these nurses - that's you. Not me.

You're deliberately ignoring the other possibilities I mentioned. You're determined to hang the guilty label on these nurses.

I've nothing more to say....

[msj]

Never mind the "we." YOU think you have enough information to judge these nurses - that's you. Not me.

You're deliberately ignoring the other possibilities I mentioned. You're determined to hang the guilty label on these nurses.

I've nothing more to say....

It is very easy to hand a "guilty label" on someone when the evidence is there for all to hear.

As I have already stated - I do not have much to say about the first nurse because her part has been so small.

If she had broken some kind of rule then yes she would deserve a reprimand.

I have been discussing, almost exclusively, the second nurse and, as I state above, we know that she released information that she should not have released.

You can listen to it for yourself.

At worst, she should be reprimanded for violating her code of ethics, the hospital rules, and the UK's privacy law.

Then she should get back to work and try to be more professional about her duties in the future.

This is not nearly the big deal that people are trying to make it out to be.

Professionals make mistakes all the time and more often than not do not get caught or it flies under the radar.

When something like this does get noticed then of course she should face the reprimand.