<p>emerald,
Although I, personally, would argue against GWU's policy, I'm glad that they at least have written policy that they publish on their website. Some colleges/Universities privately strongarm students with mental health problems. These students and their families are least able to complain, fearing the resulting stigma. I'm glad that this family decided to confront the system. This is a formative time in the development of humane university policies regarding persons with mental health and/or behavioral problems.</p>
<p>One thing that I find really amazing is - how many students actually do read and know what is in the student handbook/manual - it is all there - for the reading - tho many students have absolutely NO clue that the info is available.</p>
<p>Wonder how many parents have read it also?? I did - and I was really surprised at the 'rules/regs' that were in it - and the explanation of the processes involved when something happens - and the reasons for the 'rules/regs' as well.</p>
<p>Colleges are no longer the 'parent-away-from-home' places that they were many many years ago. The liability involved with certain situations and behaviors has become paramount to the outcomes that can occur. Colleges have placed themselves in situations of protection - for themselves and for the students in attendance - they have to - and much to our chagrin sometimes - they actually are right to take certain actions. Colleges - and their students - are being held accountable at a much higher rate these days - versus many many hears ago as well.</p>
<p>I think 'over-reaction' is gaining strength - vs - 'under-reaction' which can have very negative outcomes sometimes - and that is what colleges are doing these days.</p>
<p>I recall that I - and my student - had to sign a form at orientation - that we had actually read the student handbook!!</p>
<p>I agree. The written materials form the contract...we should all read the "small print."</p>
<p>Did the parents know their son was depressed? Had suicidal ideation?</p>
<p>In the modern era, parents cannot be informed of their child's grades, decisions to seek counseling etc.. Perhaps, within current legal guidelines, the school had done what it could prior to the specific event to get the parents of the boy to do more(told the boy to contact his parents) , to remove/help him- and they had refused(or they were never informed)- who knows (we surely don't).. From my read of the MIT situation, parents knowingly sent a depressed kid to school, and then were upset when the school could not/did not keep them apprised of how things were developing. </p>
<p>What more notification could GWU legally provide parents with? Notification of a dramatic gesture...explulsion. A school is evidently within their legal rights to let a parent know when this has taken place....but perhaps not all the details of what led up to it!</p>
<p>Suicide often takes on an 'epidemic' quality in situations like this. When the first suicide took place,hopefully there was swift delivery of pastoral care to the friends of the student involved...probably again after the second. Through this, school mental health personnel were undoubtedly alerted to things like- who the friends were, which of the friends seemed personally vulnerable, etc.. In other words, the school (and justifiably so) probably had raised antennae for certain sorts of behavior, a certain subset of students. Doing so is justified for the well being of students directly impacted by the first suicides, and the general student body as well.</p>
<p>From my perspective, as someone who has delivered mental health support to kids in schools in the aftermath of a peer suicide, the outcome of this intervention was good. The boy did not commit suicide, he is a productive student at another university. </p>
<p>I think U's hands are tied. THere is no doubt but that there is an 'individual versus group' imperative here as well. We can argue the merits of allowing mental health leave versus expulsion(which seems punitive)-- but in any case, a dramatic step was taken and a boy's life potentially saved.</p>
<p>I think they sent a direct message to students whose thinking is likely not to be particularly clear to begin with - if you think you need help with a serious mental health problem, don't come see us.</p>
<p>Copied from UMASS's website - what happened is in accordance pretty much with what GWU did as well - not an unusual policy - so it appears that GWU felt that this student was a serious risk to have taken the action they took.</p>
<hr>
<p>An involuntary withdrawal for health reasons may be recommended by a physician or therapist on the staff of the University Health Services (UHS). An involuntary health withdrawal must involve a strong likelihood of: serious risk of physical harm to the student him/herself, manifested by evidence of threats of suicide or attempts at suicide or other serious bodily harm; serious risk of physical harm to other persons in the community, including evidence of homicidal or other violent
behavior; a reasonable risk of physical impairment or injury to the person him/herself because of impaired judgment that would not allow the person to live independently or protect him/herself in the community or not allow the person to perform the essential functions of an educational program without requiring substantial modification of the program. All recommendations for involuntary health withdrawals must be evaluated and approved by either the Medical Director or
the Mental Health Director with acknowledgement by the Executive Director and Dean of Students. The reasons for the recommendation must be documented in writing along with appropriate referrals and an opportunity provided for the student to examine the recommendations and discuss them with an administrator of UHS Once documented and approved, the terms of the withdrawal become effective immediately and the student may be required to leave campus immediately.</p>
<p>However, the safety of the student while on campus has to be assured. Advance notice of an involuntary health withdrawal is only recommended when the safety of the student while on campus is assured. In the case of emergencies no advance notice may be possible.</p>
<p>A student involuntarily withdrawn for health reasons has ten (10) business days to appeal the decision. All appeals must be in writing to the Director, University Health Services, stating the reasons for the appeal and the desired resolution. The Director of the University Health Services will convene a three-member Appeals Panel composed of two physicians (neither of whom can be directly involved in the case under appeal and one of whom must be a psychiatrist) and the Dean of
Students or designee. The Appeals Panel will conduct a hearing to consider the case within five (5) business days of the request for appeal. At the time of the hearing, the student has the opportunity to contest the decision and will be permitted to have an adviser present. The decision of the Appeals Panel is final.</p>
<p>To be considered for readmission, a student must present evidence that the health problem no longer precludes safe attendance at the University. The student will be examined by the Medical Director or Mental Health Director, or designee who must approve the request for readmission. In most cases, at least one full academic semester must have passed from the time of the withdrawal before the student is
eligible to re-enroll.</p>
<p>As people consider this case, I think it's important to realize that under privacy laws, GWU can NOT present its side to the case. Everything that you're reading is very one sided.</p>
<p>To me, the fact that the student was so distressed when his roommate was out of town that the student checked into a mental hospital indicates that the student needed major, fulltime mental health treatment and was not in emotional shape to be in a dorm.</p>
<p>Clearly, he had been relying on his roomie to keep himself from commiting suicide. Think about it: Would you want your own student responsible for preventing their roommate's suicide? Would you want your own student relying on another student to keep from killing themself?</p>
<p>Anyone in such dire straits needs to be hospitalized and/or carefully followed by mental health professionals and caring, loving relatives who are in close contact with mental health professionals. They would be a danger to themselves if allowed to attend college until their severe depression has cleared.</p>
<p>I can only go by what I read. And what I read, from the University itself, is that he was expelled for "endangering behavior". And the only "endangering behavior" they cite is his asking for help and checking into the hospital to receive it.</p>
<p>The behavior of the university itself is "endangering". They have put hundreds of other students at risk, thinking of the consequences to themselves if they seek out the help they need, and which supposedly is provided, by contract, by the university.</p>
<p>I fully understand why they did what they did. But I don't think they've thought through all the implications.</p>
<p>For all we know, his "endangering behavior" was threatening to kill himself while in the hospital or checking out of the hospital against medical advice.</p>
<p>I would bet money that the full story is very different than what the Post reported. I think that the story, which in my opinion seemed one-sided, is what might lead students to not get the help that they would need.</p>
<p>To me, it seems like the story was probably written by a well-intentioned reporter who didn't know that much about mental health, suicide or privacy policies. With more expertise on those issues, the reporter could have provided a fuller story by, for instance, getting some mental health experts to talk about college students and suicide and why GWU might have reacted the way that it did.</p>
<p>Since GWU officials' comments were probably restricted because of privacy laws, getting outside experts to comment on situations involving college students, suicide, how hospitals make decisions to admit possibly suicidial patients, etc., would have provided much more depth to the story so it wouldn't have been so one sided.</p>
<p>I understand also colleges having to use forced involuntary leave, someone recently talked about his forced involuntary leave on Reeds livejournal- I don't think that they considered him a threat- but he did seem to be bipolar which if not treated properly, would certainly interfere with his ability to benefit from his studies, and likely would cross over boundaries for the other students as well.
he however, was strongly encouraged by Reed to take a voluntary leave first, but he refused, and they then gave him a forced leave.
Of course we don't know if those options were available at GWU
All we heard about is coming to the hospital and telling him not to let the door hit him on the way out.
I certainly hope they gave him some options before they got to that point.</p>
<p>I agree northstarmom
now that I think about it- I have personal connections to some stories that have been very badly reported recently and to put it bluntly the reporters really f---ed up
This would have been a great opportunity to runa short intro perhaps about GWU but then to run an informational article for the communtiy about depression and resources.</p>
<p><em>*Students who exhibit suicidal behaviors and/or are subject to emergency psychological intervention and/or are hospitalized must receive clearance from the Director of the University Counseling Center and the Assistant Dean of Students or designee prior to returning to the residential community. Immediate or eventual return to the residential community is at the sole discretion of University officials. *</em></p>
<p>From the schools website - says it all pretty much - they seemed well within their rights to do what they did considering this student was actually admitted to the hospital for a psych diagnosis - which would indicate his unstable status - but yes I agree - the reporter did a poor job of reporting this situation - and only reporting one side of this situation - so now many are very misinformed about the reality of how things were managed.</p>
<p>There are many hundreds of students seeking help at any university counseling service at any given time during the semester. The threats by this student to either himself or others must have been extraordinary for GW to take this extreme step. I suspect that telling him he would be arrested for trespassing was the only way to get him into the safety of treatment in the area of his home.</p>
<p>If GW hadn't taken these extraordinary steps to protect this individual, and he had committed suicide, then they would be medically, ethically and perhaps legally responsible for his death.</p>
<p>This student should be thanking GW for most likely saving his life. The fact that he is now successfully completing U-MD is a blessing for him and his family. </p>
<p>He will never win this lawsuit because there is no bad outcome. It was a win-win for the university, the student and his family: one less college suicide and a successful student who is graduating from a well-regarded university.</p>
<p>A family member who attends GW tells me that the university encourages any student to use the psychological counseling services. He says that any student can walk in a get one session, without any charge. I'm sure many/most other schools do the same.</p>
<p>As many have pointed out, if you only hear one side of the story, you're only getting one side. </p>
<p>For anyone who's interested, higher education these days is faced with what they refer to as the "four S's", which are the 4 problems that they spend the majority of their time worrying about: suicide, sexual abuse, sports (i.e., injuries and scandal), and substance abuse. These are the things that are the front burner, not the back.</p>
<p>Which means if GWU or other universities can prevent disasters from happening in regard to these "four Ss", they have to have a game plan. And they are not asking many of the students who are engaging in these activities to leave. I think this young man is really bringing attention to his plight in a way that is going to get him nowhere. Maybe he is looking for settlement money, but now he may have put GWU in the position of going to court because of the publicity. His battle will be very expensive, and I really don't see the point of it. He also now will be forever known as the former student with suicidal ideation, which maybe on the bright side shows that younger people no longer see a stigma attached to this.</p>
<p>The fact that this guy sought help at the local ER - and was admitted - with suicidal ideation - which is more than what he would have received at the counseling center - is most likely the biggest reason the school took the action they did.</p>
<p>This student obviously did not want to go thru the reinstatement trials and tribulations to return to this school - which there is no way around - so chose to leave completely to attend another school. The ultimate outcome being that he is alive and ?well these days - and I certainly hope he stays that way. GWU has done him a service in my eyes.</p>
<p>however- hospitals admit many patients for "evaluation"
I have had periods in my life when I was not suicidal but depressed and exhausted and needed a break.
I have gone to the hospital because that was the only way I could get some sleep!( small children- husband not helping, surving on a few hours of sleep for months- sounds kind of like some college students) I would have just gone to a hotel or a friends but my H would have gone ballistic.
Ironically it was a weekend so there was no counseling or anything available, and I was discharged on Monday.</p>
<p>Generally, with "managed care" there has to be a good reason for hospitalization besides fatigue, unless very severe and for unknown reasons. For a psychiatric hospitalization, it would be routine to ask about suicidal ideation. If this is present, a hospital would much rather discharge someone, once stabilized, to the care of family members or other responsible parties. It would be very tough to send a college student back into a dorm environment, particularly one that had spawned the depressive/suicidal reaction to begin with. If the student in question was thinking of suicide, such as jumping out of a window, it would have been negligent to discharge him back to the dorm. I think GW was very responsible, and I have absolutely no idea why this person is suing.</p>
<p>I think he and his family should be forever grateful to GW, which appears to have made a judgment that has saved his life. Go figure, I hope this case is thrown out.</p>
<p>Going back to the original quote:</p>
<p>About 2 a.m. one sleepless night, sophomore Jordan Nott checked himself into George Washington University Hospital.</p>
<p>He was depressed, he said, and thinking about suicide.</p>
<p>Within a day and a half of arriving there, he got a letter from a GWU administrator saying his "endangering behavior" violated the code of student conduct. He faced possible suspension and expulsion from school, the letter said, unless he withdrew and deferred the charges while he got treatment.</p>
<p>In the meantime, he was barred from campus.</p>
<hr>
<p>While I can accept great concern on the part of the university, I cannot accept GWU charging the student with a violation of the student code of conduct for that bespeaks a willful act, and having a mental illness and seeking treatment doesn't fill that bill. IMHO, GW's action is simply a method to terminate liability at the earliest possible moment. I attribute no noble motives to the school's actions.</p>
<p>While it is reasonable for the school to require medical clearance prior to returning to the academic community given the nature of the illness, it's the charge of violating the student code of conduct that really bothers me.</p>
<p>I'm a GWU grad of some years ago. My freshman roommate there tried to kill herself by slashing her wrists; she was confined to GWU Hospital until she could be transferred home. I don't recall the university going out of its way for her then. So it's no surprise to me that this scenario plays out this way now. The university's stance is just a replay of "blame the victim". It just doesn't fly. Firm concern yes; this no.</p>
<p>I'm obviously not a mental health professional, but doesn't it seem a bit harsh to declare this kid "mentally ill" based on one incident? Based on the article--which I realize only shows one side of the events--it seemed more like he was going through some rough times (and after a close friend's suicide, who wouldn't?), but that it was mostly temporary and that he might be fine with some guidance/counseling. I don't know, I guess if he had a history of clinical depression then yes, but otherwise it all seems a bit blown out of proportion.</p>