Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes, that would be negligent homicide (a much reduced form of sentence) and would be a criminal offence because it is a foreseeable consequence of that action.


Pulling a prank of this nature does not have suicide as a foreseeable consequence by any stretch of the imagination. Based on your logic, whenever anyone committed suicide an investigation would need to be launched and anyone who may be deemed to have made that person unhappy in anyway should be arrested. Do you hear how insane that sounds! Can you imagine a world that operated this way?


Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Somebody gets in car and drives along quite

> safely, they answer their mobile phone, they run

> somebody over.

>

> Of course they didnt mean to run the person over,

> they didnt leave the house intending to harm

> anybody. However their actions in answering the

> phone contributed to them hurting somebody.

> Therefore there is jeopardy.

>

> This is not a "draconian eye for eye nonsense",

> dont be simplistic. This is people being

> responsible for the impact of what they do.

>

> As Quids notes, phoning a Hospital to seek

> information about a Patient is wrong. That it then

> may have led, in part, to a suicide, should be

> investigated and if it is found to have a causal

> link to the death, there is jeopardy.

>

> I do not think that they are entirely culpable, I

> think that they may be partly culpable because

> their prank and its broadcasting was bullying.

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pulling a prank of this nature does not have

> suicide as a foreseeable consequence by any

> stretch of the imagination. Based on your logic,

> whenever anyone committed suicide an investigation

> would need to be launched and anyone who may be

> deemed to have made that person unhappy in anyway

> should be arrested. Do you hear how insane that

> sounds! Can you imagine a world that operated

> this way?

>

>> --------------------------------------------------

>


I'm inclined to agree. It's tragic that anyone is in a fragile enough state to commit suicide but I don't think it's fair to actually blame these DJs for her death.


They are guilty of being stupid/juvenile/having a very poor sense of humour but their producer and the radio station are as culpable in that as they are.


I also agree that the training and protocols in place at the hospital are obviosly shockingly bad (especially considering the price attached to being a patient there.) As someone else said, this would be highly unlikely to happen in an NHS hospital.


The fact is that the poor nurse must have had other issues that we may never know about, as on its own, this ridiculous prank can't have been the sole contributing factor.

The "prank" was inappropriate, and not funny. And they should have thought about what it means to call a hospital trying to get info about a patient.


I'm not so sure they should have thought about whether the person answering the phone would have mental health issues, and kill themselves as a result.


If I am in a heated argument with someone and I say "just fuck off, you're not worth the air you breath, why don't you do us all a favour and kill yourself"*. And then they go and kill themselves, I I to blame for that death?


* I'm not actually in the habit of getting in to heated arguments and advising people to end it all.

I guess what I am saying is that you can't blame anyone for a suicide. The person who kills themselves makes a decision to do that. There may be factors that contribute, and the hoax call may have been a factor in this case (or for all we know she was going to do it that day anyway).


So, at most, the DJ's actions were a contributing factor to this woman's decision to end her life. The DJs are not responsible for the woman's death.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the-e-dealer Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Are you a financial adviser?

>

>

> No, but I'm also not qualified to advise people to

> end their lives.


I think you're as qualified as anyone Otta.

I agree with Otta's more finessed view - that the DJs actions may have had contributed something to the Nurses suicide, but they are not responsible for her death.


A prank call to a hospital is not appropriate, asking for Patient information in that way is not appropriate, broadcasting the results is not appropriate.


I am amazed that the Hospital does not have better security protocols.

This is a tragic thing that has happen to the nurse involved in all this, but I think someone has to take reasonability for this not her suicide as we do not know what was going in her mind and this was another contributing factor. The DJ?S have to take some sort of reasonability and so does the hospital for their lack of security in this


I Always thought if the queen wanted to speak to someone by phone doesn?t she have armies of private secretaries that would have called on her behalf.

I suspect the Queen does make some calls herself if it's about close family.


I don't think the DJs ever actually expected for the call to go that far. From what I can tell (and yes I could be wrong) they were probably looking to get a laugh out of a receptionist, I doubt they ever thought they'd get as far as a nurse directly responsible for the patient's care.

Edcam wrote: "I also agree that the training and protocols in place at the hospital are obviosly shockingly bad (especially considering the price attached to being a patient there.) As someone else said, this would be highly unlikely to happen in an NHS hospital."


Is this based on a detailed knowledge of the independent healthcare sector and healthcare in general or some vague prejudice against private healthcare?


1. The training and protocols at King Edwards are of a high standard - I was involved in a project that looked very closely at the hospital less than a year ago.


2. No amount of training, protocols or policies can preclude human error - which is essentially how the two nurses concerned let slip the confidential information - something that would not have happened but for the poorly judged actions of the DJs.


3. To cite the NHS as an example of good management where mistakes are not made is risible - North Staffs, Pembury and countless other NHS hospitals have over many decades demonstrated that the NHS is not immune to slack management, poor levels of care, errors and mistakes. Only last week the Chief Nursing Officer was calling for more care and compassion from NHS nurses.


Finally altho an independent hospital King Edwards is, in fact, less costly than the majority of other independent hospitals in London - offering free and discounted services to serving and retired military personnel as well as general acute services to al. Try the HCA / BMI or Spire groups for premium pricing.

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Edcam wrote: "I also agree that the training and

> protocols in place at the hospital are obviosly

> shockingly bad (especially considering the price

> attached to being a patient there.) As someone

> else said, this would be highly unlikely to happen

> in an NHS hospital."

>

> Is this based on a detailed knowledge of the

> independent healthcare sector and healthcare in

> general or some vague prejudice against private

> healthcare?

>

> 1. The training and protocols at King Edwards are

> of a high standard - I was involved in a project

> that looked very closely at the hospital less than

> a year ago.

>

> 2. No amount of training, protocols or policies

> can preclude human error - which is essentially

> how the two nurses concerned let slip the

> confidential information - something that would

> not have happened but for the poorly judged

> actions of the DJs.

>

> 3. To cite the NHS as an example of good

> management where mistakes are not made is risible

> - North Staffs, Pembury and countless other NHS

> hospitals have over many decades demonstrated that

> the NHS is not immune to slack management, poor

> levels of care, errors and mistakes. Only last

> week the Chief Nursing Officer was calling for

> more care and compassion from NHS nurses.

>

> Finally altho an independent hospital King Edwards

> is, in fact, less costly than the majority of

> other independent hospitals in London - offering

> free and discounted services to serving and

> retired military personnel as well as general

> acute services to al. Try the HCA / BMI or Spire

> groups for premium pricing.



This is a member of the Royal Family we're talking about, not Joe Public.


This could only have happened because no-one trained the staff how to answer the phone. In light of recent phone hacking scandals this is unacceptable.


The responsibility lies with hospital management. They've failed both their staff and their patients in this case.


Imagine a couple of teenagers did the same thing and posted it on YouTube. Who would you be blaming then?

No, lowlander, that's just not reasonable. This is an unfortunate tragedy, but nowhere near grounds for a unilateral and poorly informed attack on the hospital. You have no idea of their training regime.


I don't know if you've ever been involved with training, or large public facing institutions, but training people doesn't make people do the right things all the time. People just make mistakes.


I'm not sure what the hypothetical story about teenagers is trying to prove?

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No, lowlander, that's just not reasonable. This is

> an unfortunate tragedy, but nowhere near grounds

> for a unilateral and poorly informed attack on the

> hospital. You have no idea of their training

> regime.

>

> I don't know if you've ever been involved with

> training, or large public facing institutions, but

> training people doesn't make people do the right

> things all the time. People just make mistakes.

>

> I'm not sure what the hypothetical story about

> teenagers is trying to prove?



Agreed it's a tragedy. I've been extensively involved in information security at a number of large organisations.


I'm sure it's a fine medical institution, and I'm not questioning that side.


What I find extraordinary to believe is that:


(a) there is a a direct line number, publicly available, which got them through to staff on the ward. Especially given that a hospital of such high standing should receive many high-profile patients who would wish a great degree of confidentiality, and who would wish the hospital to respect that.


(b) that the staff were not trained in taking direct phone calls (all calls should be routed through a reception desk or duty manager). Even if nurse 1 made a human error, nurse 2 should have checked where the call was coming from.


© that no-one envisaged (as mentioned before, especially in light of the phone hacking scandal) people phoning up.


This wasn't a sophisticated attempt to gain access. This was a stupid prank which would have blown over within 24 hours had it not ended in tragedy.


Lastly I don't understand why you're questioning my question without answering it first.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...