The National Health

[caroljane]

We don't know why the top private hospital in London does not employ receptionists to answer the telephone at any hour, but expects senior nurses to do so.

Possibly it is part of being a leading private health care facility, where top nurses are experts at multi-tasking, unlike the union whiners who insist that anything outside of nursing is "not my job, mate."

We don't know what the hospital said to its top nurse after she answered that phone and we are not likely to find out, because she killed herself and the hospital is not talking.

Don't know much, do we? I know one thing, if I ever fall sick in London, dump me on the nearest pavement in hopes that the ambulance takes me anywhere but the Edward VII.

[anthony]

Sad. Don't you think that the Brit worship of the Royals had a lot to do with her suicide?

[caroljane]

Of course, it had everything to do with it. See my end to Williams Diary. There are ultimate and proximate causes for everything. I speak here of what I feel to be the proximate cause.

[caroljane]

In addition to the grief of her husband and children, there is also a young couple who although privileged are people, and their joy in their coming child will now be forever smeared with the blood of an innocent.

[caroljane]

And oh yes, the Australian DJs are "heartbroken" and "gutted." I was too, when I lost my job. Sucks doesn't it mates?

[Dglgmut]

Are you seriously trying to place blame here, or are you being ironic?

There are ultimate and proximate causes for everything. I speak here of what I feel to be the proximate cause.

Causes? Seriously? This is just goofy... I don't know what else to say.

So the nurse has no responsibility for #1. Making a mistake. and #2. Committing suicide. Both of these things had external causes? You know she was a human being too--just like the apparent causes of this tragedy.

God...

[anthony]

Excluding force, there can't be causation from man to man. This is rejected by Objectivism - as far as I know by individualism, volition, and the Law of Identity.

Pseudo scientism bolsters a collectivist mindset, creating a model in which all men are billiard balls impacting on one another and causing our changing trajectories.

There is an absorbing comparison between the *affect* one has on another person (emotional, and so forth) - and the *effect* of direct causality. The first is of course true and valid.

I'm still playing with this, but it seems as if many post-modernists blur the distinction into a single concept, to suit their purposes.

Of course, my theory might be crap, too.

[caroljane]

I will say influences then, rather than causes. As I see it this woman was deceived, by the actions of others, into violating her own ethical and professional standards to such an extent that apparently she could no longer endure her life. It is only my speculation, that the institutional influence of her hospital were inadequate to mitigate her personal suffering, or may even have exacerbated it, through actions taken by others there. I say the radio station and the hospital bear some moral responsibility for her death.

[Dglgmut]

I say the radio station and the hospital bear some moral responsibility for her death.

If we all treated each other like 5 year-olds, like you seem to wish we did, nothing would get done. Shit happens. You're upset that a private hospital has nurses answering phones? Dear God! Or that people make prank phone calls? "There should be a law!"

If it can be proved that the hospital doesn't properly train their staff for their duties, or over-works staff to the point that mistakes are being made, they should suffer the same way any person suffers for doing a bad job. The share holders should suffer for not knowing what was going on in their hospital, or knowing and not correcting it--or thinking it was a good idea, while senior management should suffer for making such bad choices. They should suffer by losing patients to the extent it has been proved they have failed... The radio station should suffer similar consequences if people find their broadcasts offensive or in bad taste and choose to listen to other stations...

People make mistakes; it's part of human growth. This was an unfortunate mistake--that's all. The DJs made a mistake; they obviously didn't want anything like this to happen. The hospital may or may not have made a mistake. And the nurse made a mistake--including the suicide. Why is this more of an emotionally charged issue than countless people being murdered around the world? There is no ethical dilemma to consider.

Should people make prank phone calls? Can we make an ethical argument one way or another? Is it ethical to have the nurses that work for you answering phones? Again, is this a question of ethics?

Everyone involved in this is going to get more punishment for this mistake than is warranted--there is far worse happening intentionally in the world. This is just overreacting to an accidental--taking it completely out of context--as socialists do.

World hunger would have been solved by now if it weren't for so many damn caring people...

[caroljane]

I say the radio station and the hospital bear some moral responsibility for her death.

If we all treated each other like 5 year-olds, like you seem to wish we did, nothing would get done. Shit happens. You're upset that a private hospital has nurses answering phones? Dear God! Or that people make prank phone calls? "There should be a law!"

If it can be proved that the hospital doesn't properly train their staff for their duties, or over-works staff to the point that mistakes are being made, they should suffer the same way any person suffers for doing a bad job. The share holders should suffer for not knowing what was going on in their hospital, or knowing and not correcting it--or thinking it was a good idea, while senior management should suffer for making such bad choices. They should suffer by losing patients to the extent it has been proved they have failed... The radio station should suffer similar consequences if people find their broadcasts offensive or in bad taste and choose to listen to other stations...

People make mistakes; it's part of human growth. This was an unfortunate mistake--that's all. The DJs made a mistake; they obviously didn't want anything like this to happen. The hospital may or may not have made a mistake. And the nurse made a mistake--including the suicide. Why is this more of an emotionally charged issue than countless people being murdered around the world? There is no ethical dilemma to consider.

Should people make prank phone calls? Can we make an ethical argument one way or another? Is it ethical to have the nurses that work for you answering phones? Again, is this a question of ethics?

Everyone involved in this is going to get more punishment for this mistake than is warranted--there is far worse happening intentionally in the world. This is just overacting to an accidental--taking it completely out of context--as socialists do.

World hunger would have been solved by now if it weren't for so many damn caring people...

I say the radio station and the hospital bear some moral responsibility for her death.

If we all treated each other like 5 year-olds, like you seem to wish we did, nothing would get done. Shit happens. You're upset that a private hospital has nurses answering phones? Dear God! Or that people make prank phone calls? "There should be a law!"

Should people make prank phone calls? Can we make an ethical argument one way or another? Is it ethical to have the nurses that work for you answering phones? Again, is this a question of ethics?

When adults behave like 5 year olds, and get paid for it, the consequences of "mistakes" resulting from their behaviour fall upon them as adults. There are no laws, nor should there be, against deceiving people for purposes of entertainment. Impersonating a celebrity in order to gain private medical information of a member of the celebrity's family, is no crime as far as I know. I was speaking of ethics, not legality.

Deceiving ordinary people in order to play pranks on the famous is in my view unethical. It is they who will suffer the most for their "mistake" in being fooled. The famous will be embarrassed, but they are less likely to choke out their own lives than this ordinary woman who just thought she was doing her job.

What do the facts of worldwide murder and hunger have to do with it? For the record, I am against them too.

[Dglgmut]

They don't have anything to do with it, but they put it into perspective. If this was a relatively big problem for the world, I'd say let's fix it. But it's not. It's an accidental that should not be fixed because there are much, much bigger problems to worry about.

The amount of emotion people invest into things like this only shows how little they care about the serious problems.

[anthony]

I speculate the nurse was a Spaniard or Portuguese (by her name) who was over-awed by the ludicrous Royal Family cult of celebrity; was humiliated by falling for the prank; and was not too tightly-wrapped, in the first place. She wasn't - according to hospital authorities - censured for her mistake.

Ther's no legal or moral case to even consider.

It's crazy PC-ness to fire the radio people.

A butterfly flaps its wings over the Amazon... etc, etc.

An Aussie flaps his jaws in Sydney, and a woman takes her life in London.

Connection?

Tragic, but no prime cause, so no consequences.

[caroljane]

They don't have anything to do with it, but they put it into perspective. If this was a relatively big problem for the world, I'd say let's fix it. But it's not. It's an accidental that should not be fixed because there are much, much bigger problems to worry about.

The amount of emotion people invest into things like this only shows how little they care about the serious problems.

My perspective is that of one individual human life. When one individual, or millions of individuals die,I care about the reasons.

The "bigger problems for the world", are for rational types like you to fix as dictated by your Hierarchy of Caring.

[Dglgmut]

They don't have anything to do with it, but they put it into perspective. If this was a relatively big problem for the world, I'd say let's fix it. But it's not. It's an accidental that should not be fixed because there are much, much bigger problems to worry about.

The amount of emotion people invest into things like this only shows how little they care about the serious problems.

My perspective is that of one individual human life. When one individual, or millions of individuals die,I care about the reasons.

The "bigger problems for the world", are for rational types like you to fix as dictated by your Hierarchy of Caring.

Almost everyone cares about things like this... the debate is not whether or not one should care, but how much focus to devote to one problem in relation to others.

It's not irrational because it's emotional, it's irrational because it's disproportionately emotional. Save your emotions for problems that can realistically be solved.

[caroljane]

They don't have anything to do with it, but they put it into perspective. If this was a relatively big problem for the world, I'd say let's fix it. But it's not. It's an accidental that should not be fixed because there are much, much bigger problems to worry about.

The amount of emotion people invest into things like this only shows how little they care about the serious problems.

My perspective is that of one individual human life. When one individual, or millions of individuals die,I care about the reasons.

The "bigger problems for the world", are for rational types like you to fix as dictated by your Hierarchy of Caring.

Almost everyone cares about things like this... the debate is not whether or not one should care, but how much focus to devote to one problem in relation to others.

It's not irrational because it's emotional, it's irrational because it's disproportionately emotional. Save your emotions for problems that can realistically be solved.

Taking your advice, I have saved my emotions and now think of 27 more lives lost today, most of them in the earliest stages of youth. in Connecticut. As a teacher and mother of a 28year old, which apparently the murderer was, naturally I felt a certain interest in this unfortunate incident.

Gun access is a big problem that can realistically be fixed.

Too many people waste their emotions on their own hypothetical rights while their neighbours die around them every day.

[caroljane]

The Massacre of the Innocents probably never happened, but if it did, Herod needed thousands of soldiers with thousands of swords. This guy just needed one handy=dandy gadget.

[caroljane]

The Massacre of the Innocents probably never happened, but if it did, Herod needed thousands of soldiers with thousands of swords. This guy just needed one handy=dandy gadget. But prudently he had extra ones, of course, plus a bullet proof vest because you never know when a five-year-old might be carrying. And indeed in NRAmerica you never do.

Of course in Syria, killing the kids first is just good Assad strategy. Is Syria a fixable problem? Hmm...I better save my reserve emotion until I can figure out how fixable.

[Xray]

Excluding force, there can't be causation from man to man. This is rejected by Objectivism - as far as I know by individualism, volition, and the Law of Identity.

Pseudo scientism bolsters a collectivist mindset, creating a model in which all men are billiard balls impacting on one another and causing our changing trajectories.

Tragic cases like suicide also pose a challenge to philosophical tenets.

Objectivism may reject what you have called "causation from man to man" - but isn't t rational to take into account the possibility that even purely verbal actions can have devastating effects on the psyche of others? And wouldn't it be irrational to deny this?

[Dglgmut]

The Massacre of the Innocents probably never happened, but if it did, Herod needed thousands of soldiers with thousands of swords. This guy just needed one handy=dandy gadget. But prudently he had extra ones, of course, plus a bullet proof vest because you never know when a five-year-old might be carrying. And indeed in NRAmerica you never do.

Of course in Syria, killing the kids first is just good Assad strategy. Is Syria a fixable problem? Hmm...I better save my reserve emotion until I can figure out how fixable.

Well, you should figure out how fixable... no? If everything that made you emotional you stopped thinking about immediately, would that be more ethical?

The difference with the gun control debate is that is not realistic to attempt to restrict firearms from criminals... Guns should be thought of primarily as a means of defense, not as a tool for criminals. Criminals can get them... if someone is crazy enough to murder someone, they're crazy enough to illegally obtain a gun!

[anthony]

Excluding force, there can't be causation from man to man. This is rejected by Objectivism - as far as I know by individualism, volition, and the Law of Identity.

Pseudo scientism bolsters a collectivist mindset, creating a model in which all men are billiard balls impacting on one another and causing our changing trajectories.

Tragic cases like suicide also pose a challenge to philosophical tenets.

Objectivism may reject what you have called "causation from man to man" - but isn't t rational to take into account the possibility that even purely verbal actions can have devastating effects on the minds of others? And wouldn't it be irrational to deny this?

It is rational to be aware of everything that's known and knowable. Your drift here seems to be within the 'one on one' - or, perhaps, first stage - sphere. We might have an inkling of how a certain person, or body of persons react to a "verbal action" directly from oneself. It must be rational to consider the effect, yes - but "to consider" it only. Anything further implies omniscience on one's part.

I'm speaking rather of causality, in which a predictable chain of events eventuates; in this case, supposedly from person to anonymous persons, deterministically with inevitable outcomes.

Isn't it apparent that a quick way to insanity would be to try to second-guess far down the road, the 'effects' of the most innocuous thing you do or say every minute? Immobility, at the least.

Imagine if it were deemed by bureaucrats that whenever there is a dire prediction of The End Of The World, a spate of murders and suicides occurs close to the time? Their obvious answer: the State would outlaw

all mention or discussion of these apocalypses. In its view we are after all

immature fatalists with dependent minds. Irrational cause and effect applied to humans is a common Statist ploy.

(With Objectivism, each individual is 'the end of the road' in terms of

information and knowledge (the way I read it). He can debate and try to persuade another person - whom he must presume is a rational end-in-himself, too - but any possible causality stops at that point. I think this is the base of Rand's "Prime Mover".)

[anthony]

...but isn't t rational to take into account the possibility that even purely verbal actions can have devastating effects on the psyche of others? And wouldn't it be irrational to deny this?

Xray, I took another think about your question and you could mean another

level of this quite complex issue: an emotionally human one. As a rough rule, how can there be anything wrong with applying the ~ Is it true? Is it fair and just? Is it gratuitously unkind or cruel? ~ approach to dealing with an individual. Honesty always first, mind you!

[caroljane]

Xray, I have been thinking about you since the Connecticut horror. As a teacher we all have the nightmare imaginings, what if a classroom invasion, how to protect the students. I only teach adults, I can only imagine your feelings now, about your little ones.

[Selene]

Carol/Angela:

Once again, if there were armed and trained civilians in the school, this savage piece of human waste would have been stopped twenty feet past the "security desk."

Can you accept that as a viable premise?

A...

[caroljane]

?