<p>Several years ago, there was a case in Texas where an apparently suicidal student living in an off-campus dorm set his room on fire. He died but his roommate was also critically burned, so there’s more at stake than protecting the suicidal student. Colleges have to think about other students who may be put at risk.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/fire/utowers.htm[/url]”>http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/fire/utowers.htm</a></p>
<p>IMO, to assume that the college’s options are limited to immediate kick-out with no place to go, or letting the student remain and take classes, is sheer idiocy. That being the reason that some of us find this to be an absurd policy.</p>
<p>The school could, first off, place the student on a medical leave, not expulsion; the former would allow them to continue their studies at a commuter college near home. One less thing to worry about - the kids aren’t going to be more overwhelmed by further screwing up their lives.</p>
<p>Secondly, the school could place the student under watch (most have 24-hour infirmeries) until arrangements have been made for the student to go home. It could have its own mental health professionals talk to the student and work WITH the student to help her come to a reasonable method of leaving the school and going elsewhere. Even the depressed are not unreasonable; there is no reason why the deans could not take the time to talk to this student and explain her options to her… frankly, that’s why people pay absurd amounts of tuition money.</p>
<p>"The school could, first off, place the student on a medical leave, not expulsion; the former would allow them to continue their studies at a commuter college near home. One less thing to worry about - the kids aren’t going to be more overwhelmed by further screwing up their lives.
"</p>
<p>If someone has a serious mental health problem, they may not be well enough to continue their studies at a commuter college near home. Also, allowing that option might open the door to the student’s successfully suing to remain on campus.</p>
<p>"Secondly, the school could place the student under watch (most have 24-hour infirmeries) until arrangements have been made for the student to go home. "</p>
<p>A 24-hour infirmary isn’t equipped to handle suicidal patients. Suicidal patients need to be in isolation without having anything with them that theyc could use to harm themselves. They also need to be under the supervision of a psychiatrist and psychiatric nurses, staff that aren’t available at college infirmaries.</p>
<p>Um, I disagree on both points. From a legal standpoint, there’s no basis to sue to remain on campus. NONE. I attended a school that, for honour code violations, gave students the option to not contest it and leave, in which they would be able to give a clean transcript to another school but not be able to return to that one. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the difference between expulsion and mandatory leave of absence is so clear - and the advantages to one so apparent - that I think there’s no way to communicate that to you without patronising you into oblivion. </p>
<p>Frankly, as well, YOU aren’t the person to determine if the student should continue her studies at a commuter college or in a different environment. The school is, unilaterally, ill-equipped to do that. It’s an individual decision to be made by the student and her family with the advice of mental health professionals. Closing that door because an administration enjoys being paternalistic is ridiculous and cruel. We can easily imagine a student who tried suicide as a cry for help; from academic difficulties at a school like MIT; because of a bad situation on campus (I recall a girl who killed herself when the school refused to intervene when another student stalked her, installed hidden cameras in her room, and the like). Do you seriously expect people to sit on their hands for the rest of their lives because, as teenagers are wont to do, they went through a horribly depressed period? Do you seriously expect that high-acheiving people are ever content with just sitting about all day? Last time I checked, sessions with therapists last for like an hour or two. Should the student be barred from being productive for the remaining 22 hours of the day, because you and similar-minded people think that they are now incapable of doing anything? Do you really think that NO student could have her condition improved by working towards a goal? Many people try suicide when they feel hopeless about the future. You and your ilk seem to think that making the future a little more difficult makes this situation better. Hello!</p>
<p>Re: your second point. Um, are you really thinking when you wrote that? So you seriously think it’s better for a student to be literally on the streets rather under the care of a nurse? Because last time I checked, these students are getting out of a hospital, thrown out of their rooms, and then chucked out onto the streets, or, if they are lucky, with friends. The homeless population and friends are ill-equipped to handle a suidical student as well. As for,
I simply have to ask if you were even thinking when you wrote that. The college, to be clear, REQUIRED them to clean out their room. Their rooms, which presumably have the things they used to try to kill themselves the first time around. So now these students are walking around every drug, shoelace, belt, and knife they own, and this is preferable to being in an infirmery? </p>
<p>Furthermore, if the student still needs constant monitoring, they would not have been released from the psych ward. Correct? </p>
<p>It blows my mind that the college could find out about this and act on it, but not call the parents and make arrangements with them. If the response is to expel and make homeless a suicidal student, they should be sued. There is no way that such actions are the best of options.</p>
<p>I would argue that taking drugs- drinking while taking drugs- and other behaviors that college students engage in, could be considered pretty destructive.
However, apparently if you don’t * conciously* decide to harm yourself, then it isn’t stemming from depression, and even if you end up in the emergency room, not because you recognized that you needed to go, but because someone else found you unconsious, you could be readmitted to your dorm and your studies.
Seems to be a bit of disconnect there.
Someone who recognizes that they are in a destructive pattern, seems a lot healthier to me, than someone who is in complete denial and surrounds themselves with people who will aid and abet their denial
I can see the schools point though- its all about CYA.</p>
<p>I know a college student who had to have a liver transplant following an overdose of Tylenol and alcohol. Tylenol is dangerous stuff.</p>
<p>I also know a woman who narrowly survived a serious suicide attempt in her 20s. When she woke up in the hospital, she had lost her right to check herself out of the hospital. Her doctors had control of her rights. That loss of freedom terrified her more than the thought of death. </p>
<p>College is no place to recover from suicidal tendancies.</p>
<p>I agree that college is no place to recover from suicidal tendancies, but that doensn’t mean that expulsion with armed guards is the way to go. Seriously. That’s what you do for students who have attacked other students… oh, wait, you don’t. Those accused of rape are often allowed to stay on-campus; those who have stalked other students are allowed to remain on campus and complete their classes but are just given set times when they aren’t allowed to go to the dining hall. It’s so completely out of sync with every other method that schools have to deal with problem students.</p>
<p>I assume that if the girl ODed on Tylenol, she was probably in the hospital for a while. Why didn’t a friendly school counselor or some similar person come to the hospital and discuss with her her options and the possibility of going on medical leave? The options here were not “Act as though nothing happened” vs. “Kick her out onto the street”. </p>
<p>I’m also pretty disturbed at the idea of students being suspended or expelled without a hearing, for any reason - I’m on the Committee on Discipline at my school, and even the Committee only has the power to recommend suspension or expulsion (to the Chancellor, who makes the final decision). I realize that in the Hunter College case they were talking about explusion from residence, not from the school, but I saw there was another case mentioned in the article where a student was threatened with expulsion.</p>
<p>How do we know that the college didn’t have the kind of friendly chat with the student that some are suggesting? Remember, the college can’t give the newspaper their side of the story. I also know that people who are suicidal or who have mental health problems may be in big time denial about their problems, and may refuse to take the steps to help themselves that would be obvious to anyone.</p>
<p>When I was in college, my roommate asked me if I would push her out of our 18th story room. She said she was depressed, but was too chicken to jump out. I told the dean, who called in my roommate, who flatly denied what she had said, and the roommate also got mad at me, saying I was exaggerating.</p>
<p>The college wasn’t able to do anything to help my roommate, who also refused to see a therapist. Since it was her word against mine, the college’s hands were tied.</p>
<p>If she had made a suicide attempt, I bet that she would not have been willing to get any help, and probably would have had to be escorted off campus the way that was described in the article.</p>
<p>The next year, a student jumped to his death from the other 18th floor suite.</p>
<p>Schools do indeed appear to be caught between the fire and the frying pan with no easy solutions that can be applied to all circumstances. But, I think there is a way for colleges and other institutions of higher learning to potentially CYA prior to a student’s arrival on campus. They should be open with admitted students AND their parents about the potential problems that mental illness might present for all involved. They should send a specific mailing to parents addressing the school’s mental health concerns, and make matriculation contingent upon a written response stating that students and their parents understand and are willing to abide by the school’s mental health policies. I personally have problems with the way schools automatically deny parents access to information on their child’s health, physical or mental. I know that after 18, kids are considered “adults”, but there should be a legal waiver form that students have the option to sign, giving the school permission to give their parents specific information concerning their health should the need arise. This permission (or lack thereof) should be on file along with confirmation that matriculating students are fully immunized before they ever step foot on campus. </p>
<p>I do think that it is important for colleges and universities to be seen as being sensitive to the needs of students with mental health issues. As Ariesathena has expressed, there should be some sort of middle ground. Colleges should be free to administer a reasonable degree of good-faith action on behalf of a mentally ill student without fear of being sued to kingdom-come. If schools had prior written permission from both a student and his/her parents to take specific actions in such an event, it might solve a lot of problems AND lower a school’s legal liability. </p>
<p>But, mentally ill students should not be treated like criminals or discipline board cases. And while it makes no sense to allow a suicidal student to remain in his dorm room and return to classes as if nothing is wrong, it seems just as axiomatic that he should not be unceremoniously tossed on the streets with nowhere to go, and no way to address a pressing mental health need. The school wouldn’t knowingly allow a student to bleed to death following an accident on their campus, or throw up their hands while he choked to death in one of their dining halls. Why is it acceptable to not intervene during a mental health emergency?</p>
<p>Poetsheart,</p>
<p>At summer orientation prior to our son’s freshman year, the advisors provided each student with a waiver that authorized the college to contact the student’s parents in various situations such as medical or mental health problems. The advisors also told the parents about the waiver at the parents’ orientation. During both the parent and student orientation sessions, the advisors discussed the pros and cons of signing a waiver. While the advisors were generally favorable regarding limited waivers, they emphasized that it was each student’s choice whether to sign a waiver and to decide which situations would (or would not) be covered by the waiver.</p>
<p>I think our son decided to sign a waiver that authorized us to be called in the event of a severe medical illness but not in the event of a mental health problem, although I’m not sure since the waivers were/are confidential. I noticed that most parents felt better learning that this subject had been considered by the administration and that the college willingly discussed this with the students and parents.</p>
<p>Poet - that form you speak of DOES exist - but some students do not want their parents to have any right to their info - and in that case - so don’t sign it - the law is on their side. The info that a student is willing to have parents notified - must be on file EVERYWHERE where it could possibly be needed - been there - done this myself - and it was very frustrating to say the least - was for an injury that required my kiddo to go to the ER - so the schools form would not have applied - and it didn’t!!!</p>
<p>As far as that info you speak of - it is in the student handbook - which for many schools is on line and accessable to student/parents alike. Doesn’t seem to come into play for many tho until a situation occurs that would require having that knowledge at hand. But it is there.</p>
<p>At the schools we have been involved in - the student can’t step on campus until proof of immunization is available - or in the case of meningitis which can be difficult to get in some areas - the student has to have a date that they will be receiving it - at the school. We ran into that very situation - the immunization was received the 1st week of classes.</p>
<p>Many schools feel that the safety of all is at stake - and the reasoning for the student being barred from dorms/campus is one way to ‘‘protect’’ the whole situation - and to require the student to get the appropriate help that they need without causing harm to others in their environment. They are not barred from ever returning to the school - but will need to go thru a process to prove that they are ok to do so.</p>
<p>There are many students who have mental health issues - who are not removed from campus/dorms - but who are under treatment and receiving care - it is the suicidal student that poses the greatest risk and who the school is not prepared to professionally deal with. These are the students who end up being removed from school - either by the school or by the family - the ones who need intensive therapy and maybe even meds to improve their mental health - and colleges are not the place to do that - it is not their responsibility to manage the students who could possibly be a danger to themselves or to others.</p>
<p>I’m not disagreeing with any of your points, Jeepmom. I’m just saying that schools should boldly bring this issue out into the open, not just hid it in among the student handbook. Both students and parents should be made well aware of the school’s mental health policies, and encouraged to discuss potential problems with each other. It is patently unfair to hold a school legally liable for a mentally unstable student if the school is legally constrained from apprising his parents of his condition.</p>
<p>my daughters school had a parents orientation meeting- held several times during the day so all who wanted to could attend
They went through various forms- ins- grading policies- tuition schedules- and release forms.</p>
<p>Poet - I understand - but the LAW supersedes it all = hands tied - once the student is 18.</p>
<p>It would be the same if the 18 yo was not in school - but out in the real world as well - protected by laws that we the people created.</p>
<p>Yes, I understand that schools cannot inform parents of a student’s health status without consent from the student involved. But that does not mean that schools cannot be candid in discussing this with prospective students and parents and encouraging them to address such issues ahead of time. Often, mental health issues are not even considered by dewey eyed admittees and their over-the-moon parents. A pro-active stance on the part of a school could go a long way toward heading off potential mental health emergencies, and avoiding the dreaded legal catch twenty-two. If a student signs a legal waiver, allowing schools to apprise parents of potential trouble, it might act as a powerful deterent to legal liability, might it not? It would seem in the best interest of schools to pursue such permission. I wonder if any schools have ever counter-sued parents for negligence in sending a mentally unstable child into a potentially unhealthily stressful environment.</p>
<p>Poet - schools provide the legal waiver form - they can cajole all they want - if the student does not want to participate - the school can do nothing… on the other hand - the parents can probably make the argument a bit stronger to the student - don’t see the grades - won’t pay tuition type of thing - tho in the long run - it is up to the student. So yes - the schools do pursue such permission.</p>
<p>It is not only the school - it is the hospital - clinic - doctor - who cannot provide that info either - without permissionof the kiddo.</p>
<p>I recall seeing a brochure - regarding the mental health services, etc… for my kiddo - from her school. Was also discussed at orientation - but the nity grity info was referred to in the student handbook - it was all there - all the possibilities - and we - including the student - had to sign a form that we had read it!! - in that situation I guess one could fib and not read it or not be very informed about the ramifications - and still sign on that dotted line.</p>