I just cannot bring myself to fully agree with you.  There is a real lack of universal charity shown when making someone be a part of a joke when they don’t expect it or want it.

Instead of the butterfly effect, I looked at the whole scenario from a domino chain being set into motion.  In my house the domino chain plays out like this - two of my kids are playing when I suddenly hear the younger child start crying and the older sibling starts whining, “It was just a joke!”

I reply with “A joke?  A joke for who?  Just you?  It’s only a really good joke if everyone is laughing at the end.” 

Now, we can’t be sure of anyone’s reception to any joke BUT we should be able to anticipate whoever is made the ‘butt of the joke” might not take kindly to forced into the role. 

The nurse went to work never anticipating she would be force into the role of being the patsy of a poorly-thought-through prank.  She wasn’t at a comedy club nor did she call the station to be a part of whatever would play out.  She believed she was just doing her job.

More importantly, we have no idea what abuse or ridicule she may have endured as a result of the prank either from hospital management or fellow employees. 

Should we shut down every comedian or radio personality?  Of course not!  But, perhaps it will make all of them (and us) think through our perceived humor and make sure it really is a joke everyone will find funny.

We all have to take responsibility for how the dominos fall - so to speak - especially when we are the ones setting them up.  Granted, no one forced her to take her life but I’m okay with the DJ’s pondering a bit of their role in deciding to set up the domino chain to begin with.

RMW: “Ijust cannot bring myself to fully agree with you.  There is a real lack of universal charity shown when making someone be a part of a joke when they don’t expect it or want it.”
I fully agree. Using and abusing people is a crime. All people are sovereign persons.

I’m divided.
no, it’s not the DJ’s fault.
but they’re not innocent either.
.
when planning their ruse, they could reasonably assume that IF someone gave them information, THAT SOMEONE might be reprimanded.
If you’re doing something, with no real benefit, that may result in someone being reprimanded - why would you do it?
.
that nurse was in a no-win situation—- question the Queen of her own nation, or provide harmless information (as she did, she didn’t reveal anything that ought to violate privacy rules - “she’s resting now, hasn’t been sick yet today.”

I am not sure if some people don’t read the entire article or not, but I did not say what the DJs did was fine, I just said they are not responsible for the death.

I said “he DJs behavior was juvenile, insensitive, rude, and prying.” So I did not ‘exonerate’ them.  If you are going to take the time to write, I think it is incumbent upon you to actually read the whole thing.

I don’t think your assessment or criticism of the DJ’s went nearly far enough.  They may not be directly responsible for the nurse’s death, I agree, but what they did was not merely juvenile and rude.  It was humiliating and mocking.  And far worse than merely prying, it was an inexcusable invasion of the Duchess’s privacy, and for that it ought to be criminal.  I hope those stupid DJ’s are fired and are never on the airwaves again.  They should be ashamed of what they’ve done.  And they very well may bear some of the blame for that poor woman taking her own life.

@Pat -

I read and re-read your article, several times, before posting.  I appreciate you were using the recent tragedy in England to remind us of Christ who is/was the ultimate scapegoat but it didn’t work for me.
—
The idea of the Butterfly Effect is that it begins with an innocent action, the flapping of butterfly wings, which somehow, however illogically, ends in the proverbial earthquake or tsunami.
—
In the case of the DJ’s, their actions were not at all innocent as they began it with the intention of deceiving although it had the prerequisite tragic ending; as a result the article just didn’t ‘fly’.

Obnoxious pedantry time: 

Actually, it is called the “butterfly effect” because of Ray Bradbury’s short story “The Sound of Thunder”.  One of the characters travels back in time and inadvertently kills a butterfly while observing the prehistoric past.  Upon his return to the present, he discovers that this single, seemingly unimportant action in the past has completely changed the course of history.  Bradbury’s story pioneered this idea (now very common in time travel narratives) and gave the “butterfly effect” its name. 

In union of prayers for Jacintha Saldanha.  Requiescat in pace.

When a car crosses the double yellow line, one can say it is careless driving. If the car hits another vehicle head-on and people are killed, it is vehicular homicide added to careless driving. Did the pranksters intend the nurse’s death? I hope not. Did the pranksters cause the nurse’s death. Absolutely. A prank gone horribly wrong. Actually, the nurse never used the Duchess’ name and could have been talking about anyone.

Coming from Australia, radio DJs have been embarking on a trend of increasingly tasteless practical jokes. This was just an accident waiting to happen. If not this lady, then someone else.

I think you’re going too far in the opposite direction.  While I don’t think the nurse committed suicide solely because of the DJs’ joke (and making her the unwitting dupe, rather than a willing accomplice in on the joke), she most likely was going through some personal issues.  The joke and the ensuing aftermath was probably the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.  I speak from experience. I once decided to commit suicide after a seemingly isolated event, but it was that last straw during a time when I was undergoing severe mental stress.  Thanks be to God, my attempt failed and I am here and much healthier! 

What the DJs (and many people) do not understand is that one doesn’t always know what another person is dealing with or going through.  Therefore it’s important to treat strangers and everyone really with as much kindness as we can (without becoming doormats ourselves). That’s why people are often shocked at suicides—they didn’t know that the person concerned was “that upset.”  The DJs were being stupid, thoughtless and careless and contributed to the nurse’s state of mind that led her to commit suicide. They didn’t MAKE her commit suicide..but they helped nudge her along the way.

Mr. Archbold is simply trying to highlight a common theme in conservatives’ complaints about the society they live in these days, in which they see a refusal to accept individual responsibility for one’s actions. In this case, as he sees it, the nurse’s suicide, while tragic, ultimately was of her own doing, not the DJs. But the critics of his commentary, I think, are quite right: The nurse, who was trying to do her job in good faith, suddenly found herself a global laughingstock — literally, a global laughingstock — and perhaps feared being the target of wrath from her employer and the royal family. Put simply, this woman who had never sought public attention of any kind had been publicly humiliated on the largest scale possible, and she found it too much to bear. The DJs never intended such an end for her, but in their deceit and recklessness, exercised for no higher purpose than to amuse themselves and their audience and to boost their ratings, they not only triggered a suicide but inflicted horrible damage on her family. Yes, Mr. Archbold, we are responsible for our own actions, and the DJs are responsible for theirs. If as a result of their calls and pranks they reap higher ratings and are rewarded with applause, higher salaries or bonuses, then so as they reap a suicide, they (and their employer) must pay a price, as they have with their jobs and their own humiliation. They are not innocent, and they are not scapegoats.