Payout for TV trauma of Trade Centre relatives.
November 18, 2001 8:33 AM Subscribe
Payout for TV trauma of Trade Centre relatives. "British families who watched their relatives die during live television coverage of the World Trade Centre atrocity are to be compensated for the trauma they suffered, The Telegraph has learned." We're all aware of Road Rage and Airport Anxiety; now there's a new diagnosis: Televised Trauma. Whatever happened to British stiff upper lips?
I demand to be compensated for having watched one episode of "The Sopranos." I'm sure that other, less careful people than myself, will demand compensation for having watched "Survivor," "The Miss Teenage America Pageant" and other painful viewing experiences. All kidding aside, the notion that people deserve to be monetarily compensated for all unpleasant-to-horrific experiences in life seems to be based on wholly unexamined premises. How many people have watched loved ones die of cancer? Sudden heart attacks? Alzheimers? Why don't they get compensated? I'm sure that if a few clever lawyers put their minds to it, they could expand the premise by which these WTC victim's families are being paid, to cover the whole host of depressing sights one encounters over a lifetime. I, personally, am traumatized by the sight of road kill. Pay up, boys.
posted by Faze at 9:30 AM on November 18, 2001
posted by Faze at 9:30 AM on November 18, 2001
I think that older, you are getting slightly off the point. Provision is already made for people that suffer trauma as a result of watching a loved one murdered, and this is just an extension of that.
posted by RobertLoch at 9:49 AM on November 18, 2001
posted by RobertLoch at 9:49 AM on November 18, 2001
LOL, I meant Faze not Older. I am very stupid.
posted by RobertLoch at 9:50 AM on November 18, 2001
posted by RobertLoch at 9:50 AM on November 18, 2001
Same kind of thing happened after the Hillsborough football stadium diaster. Some of the familes watching live on TV were compensated for nervous shock.
posted by laukf at 10:31 AM on November 18, 2001
posted by laukf at 10:31 AM on November 18, 2001
"Televised trauma," huh? Last Thanksgiving I was forced to sit through an episode of "Providence" with my grandparents. Do I qualify for a stipend courtesy of NBC then?
posted by KLAX at 10:39 AM on November 18, 2001
posted by KLAX at 10:39 AM on November 18, 2001
The phrase "televised trauma" is inconsiderate when you realize someone might have seen the collapse of the WTC knowing that her husband was inside.
I think sometimes we forget that in the United States the people should have the power to decide how we are to be served by our government; unfortunately, the corporations decide that for us now (and have convinced most of us that anything the government does to help an individual is OHMYGOD it's WELFARE!). This law in Great Britain is admirable because it acknowledges that society as a whole bears the burden for crimes of violence and therefore should offer compensation to its victims. Survivors of violent crime, be they the victim or the family, bear a degree of trauma and insecurity that does not compare to the experience of natural death. Cancer, Alzheimer's, heart attacks, like floods and earthquakes, are elements of man's struggle with nature, which we must accept no matter how much we try to fight it; violent crime is an element of man's struggle with man, and is something civilized society seeks to eliminate.
If the U.S. Government were required to compensate victims of violent crime this way, we might not have seen its indifference to inner city crime and failure of the prison system. The fact that the incidence of violent crime is so low in Britain compared to the United States might indicate they are doing something right.
Just as Americans tore the Red Cross a new one demanding that every single penny of funds raised go to victims' families (stupid, considering we won't raise the same millions for families when we're seeing, say, our tenth terrorist attack), I doubt that Britain would think to deny their families of the WTC attacks any form of compensation.
In short, I would certainly have sympathy for someone whose father is killed in a terrorist bombing; someone whose mother is stabbed to death in a car-jacking; someone whose child is kidnapped and murdered. If the time comes when you find you are one of these people, you will certainly pray that someone is there to help you out; unfortunately, unless your tragedy is blessed on the altar of TV news coverage, you'll probably find that you're on your own.
posted by troybob at 10:54 AM on November 18, 2001
I think sometimes we forget that in the United States the people should have the power to decide how we are to be served by our government; unfortunately, the corporations decide that for us now (and have convinced most of us that anything the government does to help an individual is OHMYGOD it's WELFARE!). This law in Great Britain is admirable because it acknowledges that society as a whole bears the burden for crimes of violence and therefore should offer compensation to its victims. Survivors of violent crime, be they the victim or the family, bear a degree of trauma and insecurity that does not compare to the experience of natural death. Cancer, Alzheimer's, heart attacks, like floods and earthquakes, are elements of man's struggle with nature, which we must accept no matter how much we try to fight it; violent crime is an element of man's struggle with man, and is something civilized society seeks to eliminate.
If the U.S. Government were required to compensate victims of violent crime this way, we might not have seen its indifference to inner city crime and failure of the prison system. The fact that the incidence of violent crime is so low in Britain compared to the United States might indicate they are doing something right.
Just as Americans tore the Red Cross a new one demanding that every single penny of funds raised go to victims' families (stupid, considering we won't raise the same millions for families when we're seeing, say, our tenth terrorist attack), I doubt that Britain would think to deny their families of the WTC attacks any form of compensation.
In short, I would certainly have sympathy for someone whose father is killed in a terrorist bombing; someone whose mother is stabbed to death in a car-jacking; someone whose child is kidnapped and murdered. If the time comes when you find you are one of these people, you will certainly pray that someone is there to help you out; unfortunately, unless your tragedy is blessed on the altar of TV news coverage, you'll probably find that you're on your own.
posted by troybob at 10:54 AM on November 18, 2001
troyboy, thanks for taking the time to write that. Very well said.
posted by RobertLoch at 11:22 AM on November 18, 2001
posted by RobertLoch at 11:22 AM on November 18, 2001
Sympathy, absolutely. And while I'm certainly no Libertarian (big 'L'), I have trouble seeing how it's (UK or other) government's business to be paying people for having suffered. Suffered anything. I was traumatized to see the video footage of the "Road to Baghdad" after we slaughtered the fully-in-retreat Iraqis at the end of the gulf war as they tried to go home...so am I entitled to a payment? What if I had been an Iraqi-American, with relatives in Iraq, how about then?
Suffering sucks...but this is adding the bizarre to the horrible.
posted by chrisat at 11:25 AM on November 18, 2001
Suffering sucks...but this is adding the bizarre to the horrible.
posted by chrisat at 11:25 AM on November 18, 2001
IMHO there are some stupid analogies being used in this thread. Why not discuss the claim in the context of the specific incident rather than heading off on tangents the whole time.
posted by RobertLoch at 11:31 AM on November 18, 2001
posted by RobertLoch at 11:31 AM on November 18, 2001
so does this mean i can sue the network for televising what's going on in the world?
posted by wantwit at 11:54 AM on November 18, 2001
posted by wantwit at 11:54 AM on November 18, 2001
Waitwaitwait.
So, if this guy had turned the television off, he wouldn't get any money? There's my problem with this. Why is it that bearing "witness" is necessarily considered more traumatic? Do people who weren't there/watching get less compensation? There's a slap in the face, no? "Your trauma's not as important. Well, so what that you happened to be at work and couldn't get to a TV."
posted by Su at 12:14 PM on November 18, 2001
"Sadly I watched the North Tower, where Nigel was, collapse live on television. It wasn't something you could really avoid. "
So, if this guy had turned the television off, he wouldn't get any money? There's my problem with this. Why is it that bearing "witness" is necessarily considered more traumatic? Do people who weren't there/watching get less compensation? There's a slap in the face, no? "Your trauma's not as important. Well, so what that you happened to be at work and couldn't get to a TV."
posted by Su at 12:14 PM on November 18, 2001
The fact that the incidence of violent crime is so low in Britain compared to the United States might indicate they are doing something right [in compensating witnesses of violent acts].
Or it might be economically accounted for by any of about 430 other explanations.
posted by argybarg at 12:20 PM on November 18, 2001
Or it might be economically accounted for by any of about 430 other explanations.
posted by argybarg at 12:20 PM on November 18, 2001
Provision is already made for people that suffer trauma as a result of watching a loved one murdered, and this is just an extension of that.
Oh my. Talk about incenting the wrong behavior! I wonder how many people are murdered for the government payout.
posted by kindall at 12:21 PM on November 18, 2001
Oh my. Talk about incenting the wrong behavior! I wonder how many people are murdered for the government payout.
posted by kindall at 12:21 PM on November 18, 2001
[If your family member is killed horrifically], unless your tragedy is blessed on the altar of TV news coverage, you'll probably find that you're on your own.
You're on your own in any case. How, exactly, would TV news coverage mitigate the pain of watching my loved one killed? Or, for that matter, a payment from the government?
posted by argybarg at 12:23 PM on November 18, 2001
You're on your own in any case. How, exactly, would TV news coverage mitigate the pain of watching my loved one killed? Or, for that matter, a payment from the government?
posted by argybarg at 12:23 PM on November 18, 2001
Why is it that bearing "witness" is necessarily considered more traumatic?
This decision was made ages ago, right or wrong, the point here is whether 'bearing witness' transfers to watching it on T.V.
posted by RobertLoch at 12:27 PM on November 18, 2001
This decision was made ages ago, right or wrong, the point here is whether 'bearing witness' transfers to watching it on T.V.
posted by RobertLoch at 12:27 PM on November 18, 2001
I wonder how many people are murdered for the government payout.
From recollection, none. In the sense that CICB fraud on that level would make the headlines in a fairly memorable manner. And to be honest, there's no reason for it: the CICB payouts are a fraction of those offered by life assurance claims.
posted by holgate at 2:17 PM on November 18, 2001
From recollection, none. In the sense that CICB fraud on that level would make the headlines in a fairly memorable manner. And to be honest, there's no reason for it: the CICB payouts are a fraction of those offered by life assurance claims.
posted by holgate at 2:17 PM on November 18, 2001
Can someone explain to me how the trauma associated with witnessing the death of a loved one -- either in person or on television -- can be remedied via monetary compensation? I'd imagine that, were I in a similar situation, no amount of government grant could heal the wound suffered as a result of this loss. The following quote speaks volumes to me:
"Initially we were told by the police that there was nothing available to us because we lived in Britain. Nigel's wife lives in New York and we thought it was best if she claimed. But my other son says if there is a chance of help for us we should try to get it. This is something I will take up with the police tomorrow."
I can understand the desire to financially assist this man's wife and any children left fatherless in the wake of tragedy, but the tone of the above indicates that his parents are interested solely in receving the money for themselves.
Does witnessing the event live bear any more emotional impact than seeing it videotaped? Do the families of those captured midair when jumping or falling from the buildings deserve further compensation above this? Trying to weigh the severity of witnessing a single death amid 5,000 or more seems absurd to me.
posted by Danelope at 2:51 PM on November 18, 2001
"Initially we were told by the police that there was nothing available to us because we lived in Britain. Nigel's wife lives in New York and we thought it was best if she claimed. But my other son says if there is a chance of help for us we should try to get it. This is something I will take up with the police tomorrow."
I can understand the desire to financially assist this man's wife and any children left fatherless in the wake of tragedy, but the tone of the above indicates that his parents are interested solely in receving the money for themselves.
Does witnessing the event live bear any more emotional impact than seeing it videotaped? Do the families of those captured midair when jumping or falling from the buildings deserve further compensation above this? Trying to weigh the severity of witnessing a single death amid 5,000 or more seems absurd to me.
posted by Danelope at 2:51 PM on November 18, 2001
RobertLoch: Moderation, and appointment to the office thereof if it happens is being discussed in MetaTalk. Go there before commenting on thread content without actually contributing any yourself.
I'm aware the decision was made long ago. I'm saying it's stupid. If you're not allowing me to question that, then why is it fine to question whether "witnessing" is transferable to TV? That wasn't my point, but while we're on it, let's take the following scenario: It is easily possible for me to not have contact with people for days. I also don't watch TV very much. Say I'd planned to tape some show, and instead end up with the newscast of the attack. Does the "witnessing via TV" argument only apply to live viewing? Rather than quibble over whether TV counts, I think the question is whether the entire idea is appropriate.
If we accept it, I'm more than willing to concede that TV counts, as well as streaming feeds on the web, or any other immediate media transfer. It's just part of the way communication happens now, and has to be accepted. "In person" is no longer the only way of "being" someplace anymore.
posted by Su at 3:22 PM on November 18, 2001
I'm aware the decision was made long ago. I'm saying it's stupid. If you're not allowing me to question that, then why is it fine to question whether "witnessing" is transferable to TV? That wasn't my point, but while we're on it, let's take the following scenario: It is easily possible for me to not have contact with people for days. I also don't watch TV very much. Say I'd planned to tape some show, and instead end up with the newscast of the attack. Does the "witnessing via TV" argument only apply to live viewing? Rather than quibble over whether TV counts, I think the question is whether the entire idea is appropriate.
If we accept it, I'm more than willing to concede that TV counts, as well as streaming feeds on the web, or any other immediate media transfer. It's just part of the way communication happens now, and has to be accepted. "In person" is no longer the only way of "being" someplace anymore.
posted by Su at 3:22 PM on November 18, 2001
RCW 7.69.020 Definitions: (5) "Witness" means a person who has been or is expected to be summoned to testify for the prosecution in a criminal action, or who by reason of having relevant information is subject to call or likely to be called as a witness for the prosecution, whether or not an action or proceeding has been commenced. [State of Washington, U.S.A.]
This sort of witness could well deserve state compensation and protection.
posted by Carol Anne at 3:54 PM on November 18, 2001
This sort of witness could well deserve state compensation and protection.
posted by Carol Anne at 3:54 PM on November 18, 2001
The fact that the incidence of violent crime is so low in Britain compared to the United States might indicate they are doing something right [in compensating witnesses of violent acts].
My original general statement stood on its own; I was not implying that this was the one thing Britain was doing right resulting in lower crime rates, but that if their general policy toward violent crime (which includes this law) is working better than that in the US, why question any element of their approach?
[If your family member is killed horrifically], unless your tragedy is blessed on the altar of TV news coverage, you'll probably find that you're on your own.
If a tragedy is played out on television, especially at the national level, the increased attention to the matter would likely invite more assistance to the surviving victims (the WTC is a prime example); a woman who loses her husband in a shooting will hopefully have the support of friends and family, but I'm guessing there won't be anyone knocking on the door offering to pay the mortgage or put the kids through school or "adopt" the family.
This whole argument about the physical act of watching violence on TV (live versus videotape, etc) is far too simplistic. In this case in particular, the families of those who died at the WTC, whether they saw the event on television or not, they are in the horrible position that the nature of the news story guarantees they will hear about this tragedy over and over for the rest of their lives (note that the original linked article discussed how compensation is partly based on the presence of post-traumatic stress; I think for a loved one to re-live this story on a continuous basis would certainly qualify.)
Am I the only one who finds this argument absurd to begin with? So...Great Britain has a law that helps a group of people in need. That's all it comes down to. And there are people here not only arguing against it, but using theoretical technicalities to make their arguments. Tell me, are there many anti-humanitarians out there, or is this just some manifestation of the Republican 'if-we-give-to-the-needy-that'll-mean-less-for-us' stereotype? How about instead of arguing about whether the victims 'deserve' it or are 'entitled', we maybe take a chance on helping somebody out who needs it, without all the moral red tape?
posted by troybob at 4:20 PM on November 18, 2001
My original general statement stood on its own; I was not implying that this was the one thing Britain was doing right resulting in lower crime rates, but that if their general policy toward violent crime (which includes this law) is working better than that in the US, why question any element of their approach?
[If your family member is killed horrifically], unless your tragedy is blessed on the altar of TV news coverage, you'll probably find that you're on your own.
If a tragedy is played out on television, especially at the national level, the increased attention to the matter would likely invite more assistance to the surviving victims (the WTC is a prime example); a woman who loses her husband in a shooting will hopefully have the support of friends and family, but I'm guessing there won't be anyone knocking on the door offering to pay the mortgage or put the kids through school or "adopt" the family.
This whole argument about the physical act of watching violence on TV (live versus videotape, etc) is far too simplistic. In this case in particular, the families of those who died at the WTC, whether they saw the event on television or not, they are in the horrible position that the nature of the news story guarantees they will hear about this tragedy over and over for the rest of their lives (note that the original linked article discussed how compensation is partly based on the presence of post-traumatic stress; I think for a loved one to re-live this story on a continuous basis would certainly qualify.)
Am I the only one who finds this argument absurd to begin with? So...Great Britain has a law that helps a group of people in need. That's all it comes down to. And there are people here not only arguing against it, but using theoretical technicalities to make their arguments. Tell me, are there many anti-humanitarians out there, or is this just some manifestation of the Republican 'if-we-give-to-the-needy-that'll-mean-less-for-us' stereotype? How about instead of arguing about whether the victims 'deserve' it or are 'entitled', we maybe take a chance on helping somebody out who needs it, without all the moral red tape?
posted by troybob at 4:20 PM on November 18, 2001
"Television trauma", give me a fucking break. I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Not to downplay someone seeing their relatives (potentially) die on live TV, but—correct me if I'm wrong—the TV coverage wasn't that attentive, in that they didn't have close-ups of the people leaping from the towers... Sorry folks, but this reeks of nonsense.
What is it these days, with every facet of human existence being linked to some sort of 'trauma', or 'stress disorder'. When did we—as human beings—get so Goddamned weak!?
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:49 PM on November 18, 2001
What is it these days, with every facet of human existence being linked to some sort of 'trauma', or 'stress disorder'. When did we—as human beings—get so Goddamned weak!?
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:49 PM on November 18, 2001
Follow-up: in that they didn't have close-ups of the people leaping from the towers doesn't mean that I'm saying we didn't see live footage of people falling to their deaths, rather that I doubt anyone could have picked a family member out—the shots weren't that close.
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:50 PM on November 18, 2001
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:50 PM on November 18, 2001
Su The post asked about 'Televised Trauma.' That is what I was commenting on. However, you are right in respect to my attempts at 'moderation,' I should not have done it.
In answer to your question....
Scenario A: An 11 year old girl watches her mother being brutally stabbed 34 times.
Scenario B: 11 year old girl is told that her mother has died and gone to heaven.
I'd say that A is more traumatic that B, and would do more long-term damage. Money isn't the answers, but in the absence of any other way of compensating, it will have to do.
posted by RobertLoch at 5:26 PM on November 18, 2001
In answer to your question....
Scenario A: An 11 year old girl watches her mother being brutally stabbed 34 times.
Scenario B: 11 year old girl is told that her mother has died and gone to heaven.
I'd say that A is more traumatic that B, and would do more long-term damage. Money isn't the answers, but in the absence of any other way of compensating, it will have to do.
posted by RobertLoch at 5:26 PM on November 18, 2001
I have never heard of this british practice before. Can someone in the know please answer these questions for me:
1. Where does the money come from (who pays)?
2. Is qualification for benefit under this program based on income/wealth, or is it given to anyone who shows proper claim?
3. What limits are there on family extension? Is it family only? (in other words, can a victim's boyfriend be denied, while his second cousin gets some money?)
4. Has there been any event besides 9.11 that caused a large number of benefit claims to be awarded?
5. How much money do recipients usually get?
It is impossible to form a reasonable reaction to this story without knowing the answers to these questions.
posted by yesster at 8:47 AM on November 19, 2001
1. Where does the money come from (who pays)?
2. Is qualification for benefit under this program based on income/wealth, or is it given to anyone who shows proper claim?
3. What limits are there on family extension? Is it family only? (in other words, can a victim's boyfriend be denied, while his second cousin gets some money?)
4. Has there been any event besides 9.11 that caused a large number of benefit claims to be awarded?
5. How much money do recipients usually get?
It is impossible to form a reasonable reaction to this story without knowing the answers to these questions.
posted by yesster at 8:47 AM on November 19, 2001
1. The government.
2. You're not disqualified by your earnings: in fact, they can count in terms of loss of earnings.
3. Not sure.
4. The Hillsborough football stadium accident: where the notion of "witnessing from a distance" was first established.
5. Not much, at least compared to US compensation lawsuits: there's an ongoing debate about the amounts available, as was the case where a nursery teacher was severely injured in a stabbing attack a few years ago.
The CICA website provides more details, as does this BBC article. It's established to guarantee at least some compensation for victims of crime: my grandmother received a few thousand pounds from the CICB -- the CICA's previous incarnation -- when she was knocked down by a car on a pedestrian crossing.
posted by holgate at 10:44 AM on November 19, 2001
2. You're not disqualified by your earnings: in fact, they can count in terms of loss of earnings.
3. Not sure.
4. The Hillsborough football stadium accident: where the notion of "witnessing from a distance" was first established.
5. Not much, at least compared to US compensation lawsuits: there's an ongoing debate about the amounts available, as was the case where a nursery teacher was severely injured in a stabbing attack a few years ago.
The CICA website provides more details, as does this BBC article. It's established to guarantee at least some compensation for victims of crime: my grandmother received a few thousand pounds from the CICB -- the CICA's previous incarnation -- when she was knocked down by a car on a pedestrian crossing.
posted by holgate at 10:44 AM on November 19, 2001
« Older | More Q & A on Terror and War
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"In 1964 the Government established a non departmental public body - the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) to administer compensation throughout Great Britain on the basis of common law damages to victims of a crime of violence. The Scheme was introduced to provide an acknowledgement of society's sympathy for such victims."
Acknowledging society's sympathy for victims is fair enough. But citing TV trauma is surely the wrong focus.
posted by dlewis at 9:19 AM on November 18, 2001