Etcetera

Suspended Sophomore Seen as Suicidal Secures Sweet Settlement

pO157.

Posted to Etcetera on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 04:49:55 AM EST (promoted by Acefantastik). RSS.

On 11/1 both sides in a court case announced they had reached a settlement deal. What made this case noteworthy is what some view as outrageous actions taken by the defendant(s) that instigated the lawsuit. The case dealt with a George Washington University sophomore who had been barred from campus, sent orders of suspension, and threatened with expulsion for violating the school code of conduct. His crime? Voluntarily seeking help for depression.

According to the facts in the case set out in the complaint (pdf doc), straight-A GWU student Jordan Nott headed down this troubled road in 2004. A close friend of his ended his life that April while Jordan and two friends stood outside the locked room, trying to help. Jordan was deeply hurt by this incident, and began to experience depression that September.

A visit to the school psychiatrist yielded two prescriptions, Ambien and Zoloft. Although Jordan said he had no intentions of harming himself, the doctor nonetheless questioned him about how he would go about committing suicide if he actually intended to do so. Later that evening Mr. Nott realized that the medications had the side effect of heightening depression symptoms before reducing them, and that his roommate would be away for several days. Although he felt fine at the time, he believed he should not be left alone, just to be safe. So he went to the university hospital and was admitted voluntarily. The hospital then notified the university about his admission.

A flurry of nasty bureaucratic letters then began, before his family could even arrive at the hospital. One administrator told his mother that they were necessary because Mr. Nott had to "learn the seriousness of the incident." At least one of the letters was delivered to the ward after visiting hours after his mother requested they not be sent before she was able to see her son, as she feared it would further destabilize his condition.

The letters offered Mr. Nott the ability to avoid the hassle of campus disciplinary charges if he withdrew from school and provided the administration with medical documentation -- although he would still be barred from campus (a punishment normally given to convicted criminals and sexual offenders). He was not even allowed into his own dorm room with an escort to pick up his belongings once released from the hospital.

Once home, several months later, more disciplinary trespass warnings were sent to him. He began the process to transfer to other colleges. His parents complained to the president of the university. Months later he again appealed for the right to return to campus to visit his friends, etc. His request was denied.

As one would expect, the classy actions of George Washington University and its employees, lead to a pro-bono lawsuit, and a firestorm among the academic community and beyond.

Administrators insist they were simply trying to limit their liability, and act in Mr. Nott's best interest. They state that there is a liability in having suicidal or potentially mentally ill students enrolled.

Inside Higher Education reports GWU is now working on a plan that would allow students' private mental health records to be shared with university administrators -- possibly by the use of forcing students to sign a privacy waiver allowing mental health session records to be shared with the university officials. The effects of this plan (if implemented) on students with problems actually getting help is not known.

Mental illness is already a highly stigmatized condition in this country. What effects do cases and policies such as this have on mental health treatment? Are actions such as those taken by GWU justified?

edited by Ace

Tags: edited by Ace, written by pO157, GWU, George Washington University, Suicide, Death, Law, Privacy, Rights, Mental Illness, Health, Students, Education, Law Suit, School, Washington DC, College (all tags)

This story: 8 comments (6 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
4

Incompetence

thefadd.

Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:48:32 PM EST

5.00 (informative)

They want to limit their liability as evidenced by their own statements and their actions in getting the depressed kid off campus as quickly as possible. And yet, they want to increase the amount of medical information to which they are exposed, thereby increasing their liability anyway you slice it, even if they do use that information to more quickly usher other depressed kids off campus. They are truly incompetent.

escalators never fail; they just become stairs

1

Screw GWU

pO157.

Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:52:07 AM EST

none

One of the reasons I posted this is because when I first read about this case my What. The. <Bleep>? meter was pegged.

First off, what type of message are they trying to send? That being proactive about your mental health and well-being will get you treated worse than the kid who brings coke to campus and sells it from his dorm? Will get you expelled? I don't think that Mr. Nott was a danger to anybody else, at the time he presented himself for admission. From the reading of the article it seems that he was worried about side effects of the drug cocktail (which was prescribed by a representative of GWU, nonetheless) which had a documented tendency to cause temporary worsening of depression symptoms when started -- which, unfortunately for him, occurred over a weekend when he would be left alone. He should be congratulated for being thoughtful enough to have thought of other people and voluntarily gone to the hospital even though it was not probable that something bad would have happened.

Second, what in the hell were they thinking when they sent those letters to him in the psychiatric unit? Psychiatric units are supposed to be all about creating and maintaining stability. You sure as shit don't have that with the school sending polite letters informing patients that they may be expelled simply for seeking help. Here is a guy, whose #1 job is to get well and to get back home (I've known folks who have ended up in those places, and they are very expensive) to continue his recovery. It is not unlikely that these bullshit tactics caused his recovery to slow, or his depression to even worsen. However, it is apparent that GWU was so concerned about filing its TPS reports properly than actually showing ANY concern at all about the well being of its students.

Third, what in the hell are these "charges" GWU speaks of? And on what planet does any GWU jurisdiction over Mr. Nott continue months after he has been coerced to withdraw from the university? And why in the hell does some tin-pot petty despot of a school administrator have the right to demand sensitive medical records of a former student?

In short, when he needed the university the most, it abandoned him, and furthermore, kicked him while he was down. Repeatedly. The administrators who did this should be immediately terminated and held to strict and severe personal civil liability. In addition, any medical or mental health personnel who leaked Mr. Nott's presence in the unit should have their certification put under review by the appropriate oversight board.

Mental illness in this country, and unfortunately even manageable mental illness (even a common condition such as depression, which a large fraction of us will develop at some point in our lives) is often broadly considered to equate to "Danger" or a character flaw by uninformed, uneducated people. It is a shame that the one of society's bastions of enlightenment (and its agents) could not get past this itself.

Shame on GWU.

2

Similar case, different results

port1080.

Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 10:08:04 AM EST

none

As an undergraduate student, an acquaintance of mine was involved in a similar situation. This person made a (unsuccessful, obviously) suicide attempt but decided against going through with it at the last minute, with no long term harm. Campus public safety officers were involved in getting this person appropriate medical care, and so it came to the notice of Residence Life. Initially they did not want to let the person in question back on campus, but after this person passed a psych evaluation they changed their minds. My friend graduated and is now a successful / productive member of society - a happy conclusion. This seems like a more sensible policy to me - obviously, if someone may be a harm to himself or others, he or she should be receiving appropriate care rather than going to classes. That said, there should be a reasonable amount of risk acceptance on the part of universities - if the person in question is seeking treatment and behaving cooperatively, this is a behavior that should be rewarded and encouraged.

3

Things that make you think

wetkarma.

Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 06:07:34 PM EST

none

This story made me think: "well there must be more to it than that".

Here are some questions:
Why are the colleges liable and what are they liable for when a student is suicidal?  

What did GWU want to happen in re: to the student? I.E. Where did the student go wrong in his actions from GWU's pov? I simply don't understand how hospitalizing yourself constitutes "Dangerous Behavior" even under the most extreme interpretation of a code of conduct.  

I'm not at all comfortable with p0157's editorializing, (makes me inclined towards GWU's side), but this case makes GWU seems like a pretty crappy school overall

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

This story: 8 comments (6 from subqueue)
Post a Comment