Comments on Eyes Cast on New Suicide Trial

• Posted by Larry on August 22, 2006 at 8:40am EDT

• None of this would have happened, if colleges didn’t even pretend to act like parents, and simply made sure that health care was available (via an insurance policy) to students and faculty alike. Instead, the school, decided to assume a duty of care that they likely could never follow-though on.

• Responsibility?
• Posted by Martin on August 22, 2006 at 9:40am EDT

• Having worked in higher education for over 25 years and having been involved in several suicides (which in the case of adolescent and post-adolescent is not all that rare) this is just another sign that society wants to "put the blame" on anyone and everyone except where it belongs - probably no one in cases like this. Health care professionals can only do so much to prevent persons who are destined to carry out such acts from taking their own lives.
  As unpopular as this will seem, the student must shoulder a portion of the responsibility, as well as the parents, the school and those in the health care profession. To simply imply that the healthcare professionals were negligent in this student's death is absurd. It is time for society to stop trying to find fault and try and find some solutions.

• Assigning blame
• Posted by Former college administrator on August 22, 2006 at 9:50am EDT

• It's a horrible thing when a loved one dies, especially if it's one of your children. It's also understandable that during the grieving process a parent would look for answers to the question of "why my child?" and "how could this have been prevented?". At some point, however, one must accept the fact that perhaps there is no one to assign blame other than the individual who chose to end his or her life. If a college counselor were to alert authorities every time a student expressed feelings of sadness, loneliness, and the like, emergency officials would be on-site around the clock. Anyone with children can tell you that it's impossible to always know what's going on in a kid's head. Until we equip college staff with the ability to read minds, shit is going to happen. And most of the time, no one is to blame. For this reason, I hope Allegheny College chooses to defend itself in court.

• Posted by Larry on August 22, 2006 at 10:45am EDT

• Okay, let’s get some things straight. Former college administrator, The college is defending itself in court. However, the parents’ legal theory is that the college began helping their child, but the level of help they provided was below that of what they should have provided. (There are some legal distinctions between malpractice and negligence, but I don’t think people are too interested in them.)
  Another thing: the school is not being blame for the kid’s suicide per se, but rather for failing to provide him with the level of care that they started to provide.

  Schools can avoid this problem very easily: don’t provide counseling services. By requiring that all students have health insurance (which is generally the case), and ensuring that such policies cover mental illness, a school can kill two birds with one stone: students will have adequate care, when needed, and the school won’t be accused of making half-a**ed attempts to care for its students.

  The problem with this school, and many others, is that they treated their students like children. They are not. Students, like faculty and staff, are adults. Sure, they should have access to health care, but they should not be offered (or forcibly provided with) counseling. If a student fails to comport with the rules of the school, regardless of the reason, he can be removed. (By the same token, the school can’t make up the rules at it goes along.)

• Universities are not responsible
• Posted by hannah , assoc. prof. on August 22, 2006 at 11:05am EDT

• All I can do is send a kid to counseling if he or she exhibits symptoms of depression or despair. I have done that many times. Ultimately, it's the family's responsibility to get the student to a highly-trained professional if a counselor is not enough. Some students have very severe troubles that are only solvable via intense treatment and medication - certainly the stress of term papers and exams can only exacerbate the troubles. I have had to tell students to consider leaving college for a while and see about getting his/her life together (after a completely failed semester.) But I agree with the poster above who stated that if someone is going to take his/her life, it is impossible to stop it. Professors are academics, not psychologists, not doctors and not lawyers. We cannot call parents or family members and say, "Hey, this kid has a problem" because the "kid" is an "adult" and the Privacy Act prevents us from devulging any information to a family. So what is to be done? I just hope that Allegheny College defends itself and wins or this case could set a very bad precedent in future situations.

• Posted by Former student, current faculty on August 22, 2006 at 12:00pm EDT

• Most IHEs only provide temporary, emergency counseling. It isn't meant to be used for long term, extreme mental issues. Most only offer a few visits per academic year, and strongly encourage each student to find their own counselor/therapist, outside of the university, and often even recommend local mental health providers. Parents don't realize that this is the purpose of IHE counseling services, and that it is the student's responsibility to find a permanent solution.

  On a personal note, a friend of mine recently committed suicide by cyanide poisioning. We found out his plan, took him to the hospital right before he was going to take the poision, and he still did it in the bathroom of the hospital. When someone is determined to kill themselves, there is often nothing you can do. I know that the parents are grieving for the loss of their child, but it seems like they need counseling themselves, and not litigation, to deal with their loss.

• How professors are hurting
• Posted by Larry on August 22, 2006 at 12:25pm EDT

• Hannah, By sending kids to counseling, you are part of the problem. If your school provides them with counseling, they are generally taking on a duty, which, in many cases, they are ill-prepared to follow through on.

  What is to be done? Act like a professor. Treat the kid like a colleague (even if he doesn’t act like one). If he breaks a law, call the police. Otherwise, don’t pretend to be something you are not.

  Oh, I am not sure that the privacy act prevents a non-clinical professor from communicating with a students’ parents regarding their observations of the student in class. Unfortunately, there is a lot of vagaries and misinformation in this area, so, if you are going to refer to a statute, you best provide the citation.

• Parents and suicide
• Posted by Dr. Arthur Ide on August 22, 2006 at 12:25pm EDT

• If anyone is at fault, it is the fault of the parents of the suicide. They were not close enough nor willing to accept parental responsibility for the action and psychology of their child. At the same time, the ultimate responsibility is with the suicide. He did not call his parents, and he expected the school act as if it were his parent. Teachers and counselors and administrators can only do so much, and they have more than one student. If a student wants to end his/her life, the choice is his/her choice. People must have the right to make that choice, regardless of the reason. For anyone to argue that he/she has this/that to live for is absurd, as value is an individual judgment.

• Unfortunately, it's the only recourse we have
• Posted by hannah , assoc. prof. on August 22, 2006 at 1:20pm EDT

• Hi, Larry, I appreciate your comment. Maybe you will find your answer here.
  http://www.umich.edu/parents/ferpa/ferpa.html#Q2

  You are right - these counseling services are ill-equipped to provide such treatment. They should not even ATTEMPT to advertise themselves as treatment programs. However, it's the only recourse we have at the moment. As for calling the cops, that's all I need - to make a student who will most likely NOT be taken out of school even more angry. And being in front of class, as we all are, or alone in our offices, well, I don't need somebody bringing a gun in to take me out. We did have a kid who would fake suicide attempts and who set stuff on fire in the dorms. He was NEVER expelled.
  Anymore, no one takes any responsibility for his/her problems - until that type of disorder in our society is cured, if possible, I fear we are going to see more of these occurrances.

• Posted by A Therapist on August 22, 2006 at 1:50pm EDT

• Its amazing that a settlement like the MIT case will lead to lawuits. I am sure the multi million MIT paid has put dollar signs in the eyes of lawyers and plantiffs.

  Back to the issue. The problem is that the issue is double edged issue.

  Lets say a college gets rid of Counseling. Then the issue is that the college did not care enough to have services avaliable to help an individual.

  A college with Counselors on staff, then the issue is that there is no proceedure in place to have an intervention.

  Any issue is compounded by a administrative professionals that are incapable or unable to make a decision.

  By the way in any licensed therapy, Harm or Self-Harm throws confidentiality out the window.

  The University Of Illinois, in my opinion, has the most effective counseling program with respect to suicide. I view their program as monitoring, watching, checking on the student AND deciding if the student should attend college in their state. The task is dealing with the suicide and not just generic counseling.

  Here is a brief summary of Illinois procedures:

  1. When the Suicide Prevention Team is in receipt of a credible report that a student has threatened or attempted suicide, engaged in efforts to prepare to commit suicide or expressed a preoccupation with suicide, the student will be required to attend four one hour sessions of professional assessment with a licensed mental health professional who agrees to participate in the program's requirement of a comprehensive and in-depth assessment of the precipitating incident, prior attempts and threats, and current suicidal intent. In addition, the professional must be willing and available to engage in counseling and/or therapy, if the student so consents.

  2. The first assessment will occur within a week of the incident or release from the hospital.

  3. The remaining assessments will ideally occur at weekly intervals.

  4. Students are required to participate only in an assessment of their past and current suicidality. Students are not required to engage in counseling or therapy. A student may elect to go beyond the required assessment and participate in counseling or therapy, only after the professional secures the student's permission through verbal consent.

  5.Students can obtain the assessments with a private practitioner with comparable credentials at his or her own expense and after signing an authorization allowing that practitioner to communicate with members of the Suicide Prevention Team. All professionals will make the incident, its roots and implications a significant focus of each of the four assessments.

  6. Students seeking to obtain the four assessment appointments with a private practitioner must sign a release allowing the practitioner to make contact with a member of the Suicide Prevention Team. As was the case with university professionals, before meeting with the student, the private practitioner must be provided with independent sources of information regarding the suicidal incident, if such reports exist. These include suicide notes, police reports, emergency room reports and eye witness accounts.

  7.Private practitioners will be required, during the period in which the four session assessment occurs, to provide the University with reports of instances in which the student threatened or attempted suicide, engaged in efforts to prepare to commit suicide or expressed a preoccupation with suicide.

  8.The Chair of the Suicide Prevention Team will advise the Dean of Students in the event that a student does not comply with the policy.

  9. Failure to adhere to this standard of self-welfare or failure to fulfill the requirements of the assessment following a suicidal incident may result in disciplinary action, academic encumbrance, suspension and/or withdrawal. The appropriate actions associated with this policy will be determined by the Dean of Students

  10. The Dean of Students may take other steps, including contacting the student's parents and/or other significant others in the event of a particularly potentially lethal suicide attempt or in the event of repeated suicide attempts.

  11. All records associated with the reported incident are kept separately by the Suicide Prevention Team and do not appear as part of the student's academic record.

  12. All records associated with the mandated assessment are protected by state laws regarding confidentiality.

  13. A student may appeal the accuracy of the report to the Suicide Prevention Team. In some instances, in order for the appeal to go forward, a student will be required to sign a release of information authorizing the members of the Suicide Prevention Team to contact and interview witnesses to the incident.

  14. The policy of four sessions of professional assessment is applied uniformly to all students who cross the threshold described above. The requirement of four professional assessments is not subject to appeal.

  15. If a student disagrees with other aspects of the program, such as whether the events in question cross the threshold of what constitutes a suicide threat or attempt or whether the professional he or she has retained meets the requirements of the program, he or she can appeal the Suicide Prevention Team's decision to the Dean of Students or designee.

  15. The Dean of Students decision is final.

• Posted by Larry on August 22, 2006 at 1:51pm EDT

• Dr. Idle, Just keep in mind that the “right to die” is a very murky issue in both state and federal constitutional law.

• A nurturing environment
• Posted by Barb , graduate at Shimer on August 22, 2006 at 2:30pm EDT

• Counseling services are necessary in order for many students to remain in college. I have observed this on a personal level. Larry, where is your empathy? When professors quit caring about their students' personal well-being, both emotionally and physically, the learning environment is affected. Colleges create a nurturing environment for their 'charges." How can "too much care" for college students by their institution ever be defined? Consider this: Statutes and citations don't always apply to every situation.

• Posted by Therapist on August 22, 2006 at 3:45pm EDT

• Barb,

  You are so right! What is more important: the duty to warn (if it is apparent there is a suicide threat) or FERPA.

  I look at it like this: in every theraputic licensing law there is a duty to warn in any endangerment situation or self-harm. A counselor following that clause and convinced of a threat to life would take steps to warn.

• consolidated replies
• Posted by Larry on August 22, 2006 at 4:20pm EDT

• My first try at replying to this steady stream of paternalism (and I don't mean that in a bad way) was eaten. So here goes again.

  Barb, My empathy is for students who don’t want schools interfering with their personal lives. My empathy is for people who want to be treated like adults when dealing with health care providers. The school is in no position to treat people. No professor that I know would seriously consider turning in his fellow professors to the mental health police (as many administrators calls them) because he was acting strange. Somehow, students, despite being adults, get this kind of treatment. (Disclaimer: In my culture is dishonorable to go to counseling, but I don’t think that influences my argument.)

  Hannah, Grades are different than personal observations of mental illness. For instance, if you witnessed one of your students, say, injecting himself with a drug or hitting himself with a shoe, you would not be bound by the federal statute not to keep silent. Now, you can, of course, use your own judgment as to whether to call the cops if someone is not hurting someone but nevertheless violating a law. If someone is hurting someone, I would suggest you call the police. Faking suicide attempts is annoying, but probably doesn’t hurt people, so I don’t see why you would expel someone for pulling a Harold and Maude.

  A Therapist,

  Your comment lacks specifics, but I will try and address your arguments, nevertheless.

  First of all, you seem to be repeating the rhetoric of insurance company lobbyists regarding “dollar signs” in the eyes of parents. Are you really arguing that parents of dead children are greedy?

  Second of all, if a college gets rid of counseling, the issue does not become “hat the college did not care enough to have services available to help an individual.” This is incorrect as a matter of law. In every state to address the issue, colleges and universities have been held to have no duty to students either to 1) act as parents; or 2) provide people with services that they did not start providing. E.g. It is well-settled that colleges Eiseman v. State of New York 518 N.Y.S.2d 608 (1987) (“Colleges have no legal duty to shield their students from the dangerous activity of other students”.) ; Talbot v. New York Institute of Technology, 225 A.D.2d 611 (1996) (“New York has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level.”). There are no exceptions to this. If you can find a reported case which shows #2, I will admit that I am wrong. Otherwise, you are just trying to increase the market for “counselors.”

  Third, you seem to envision an Orwellian system where colleges “monitor” students for anything that they consider to be abnormal. This is, quite frankly, sick. Universities don’t treat faculty and grad students this way. But somehow administrators seem to like to bully undergrads.

  Fourth, The “Duty to Warn” is a product liability concept, and perhaps is a term of “informed consent” in the malpractice concept. It generally has no applicability to negligence by schools. The FERPA isn’t applicable here, either. If you can provide specific caselaw on this issue, go ahead, otherwise, I think you should attribute your positions to your self interests.

  Fifth, Strangely, you take divergent positions regarding “confidentiality” of records versus a “duty to warn” of dangerous students.

  Sixth, I am still curious as to why the process of your “Suicide Prevention Team” (which “defendant” student cannot choose the makeup of) is never applied to faulty. Is it because you don’t want to treat faculty? Or is it because you think that faculty are just better people, are really adults, whereas students, despite being legally adults, are treated like children by you?

  Finally, decisions of a dean of students are never really final, since they can effectively be challenged in court. Saying this otherwise doesn’t make it so.

• All good comments
• Posted by Martin , Administrator on August 23, 2006 at 11:10am EDT

• All of the above comments warrant some merit; however, the bottom line in all of this is culpability. We can debate what counseling services should and should not do, we can argue the "right to die" debate for years, we can explain away a million reasons for people to want to die, but we must look at the larger picture. Who is responsible for this young man's death. Why, and I repeat myself on this one, is it that someone must be "blamed" for this death. Instead of looking at the one that died, perhaps we should examine the many students who seek counseling at universities who do not committ suicide. These services are often cruicial in the retention efforts and in my case, I send students to the counseling center who have gotten into some judicial trouble at the University. These professionals are not trained to do serious counseling, and as one college administrator once said to a parent, "Your child did not suddenly aquire negative behavior once they arrived on campus, chances are they brought this behavior with them." My bet is this young man had psychological and behavioral problems which were ignore or misdiagnosed for years. I hate to think of the future and the cost of education if lawsuits like this one are allowed to go forward. I feel for the parents, being one myself, but I can not help but think this is so much more about money than grief.

• reply to Martin
• Posted by Larry on August 23, 2006 at 12:25pm EDT

• Martin, First of all, the story appears to indicate that the lawsuit progressed past the summary judgment stage. So, the lawsuit is going forward.

  Insofar as one can state a claim for the university’s negligence, in providing the student with a half-hearted attempt to help them, the parents’ behavior is, as a legal matter, almost irrelevant. Why? The school began to help the student, and then, as the parents argue (as it hasn’t been proved) didn’t follow through.

  This is sort of like the more classical tort situation where a person goes to aid a drowning man. He starts to swim out to the middle of the lake. But, 10 feet short of the drowning man, he stops and decides to go watch the latest episode of “Survivor.” In such an instance, the man (or his estate) would have be able to sue under a negligence theory. In most states, whether the person should or should not have been out on the lake is irrelevant, as is whether he is a good swimmer, because the person, by beginning to aid the downer, effectively foreclosed other forms of rescue. (This would be different if the rescue was abandoned due to the conditions of the lake, and maybe whether the man’s drowning could be shown to be inevitable.)

  What I find curious about most administrator’s comments is that they treat their obligations to faculty and students so differently. Faculty spend a good chunk of their lives on campus (or at least they should). Faculty often eat (and sometimes sleep) on campus. Faculty are provided with incidental services such as gym memberships and child care. Faculty are also provided with benefits such as health care. All of these things require administrators. Unlike faculty, administrators see students incapable of managing their own lives, and being in need of constant “watching” to see if he has “psychological problems” that will justify removing him from campus. (As a practical matter, being removed from campus for mental health reasons will dash many career hopes, regardless of whether the student actually broke a law or not.)

  Strangely, Martin, you admit that your counselors are not adequately trained. Why is this? Why do you want to provide counseling to people without adequate training. Would you provide medical care to students by quacks? Do you want people or corporations represented by incompetent lawyers? Strangely, doctors and lawyers are usually know what they can handle and what they can’t. If schools are going to take on this duty – which I don’t think they should – they must get good help, and good help can carry professional liability insurance. When this happens the cries of “frivolous lawsuits” and “clogged courts” will only be made by insurance carriers looking to increase their profits.

  Or, they could treat students like adults.

• agree with Larry
• Posted by karl laves on August 23, 2006 at 2:15pm EDT

• Larry,

  I have struggled to understand your point, but I think it is beginning to sink in. If we offer a service because we see students as less than adults, then we are liable for failing to deliver said service. To prevent legal action, the best course for us is to not offer the service. We could avoid further risk if we stopped offering instruction. Faculty clearly see students as less than adults with attenance policies, tardiness policies, and penalties for improper answers. They assume responsibility for students when they create rules like no cell phones in classes and don't even get me started on the legal risk of assigning grades when faculty are not required to have any training in educational assessment (Remember being told your paper just didn't seem to be A material, with no explanation of what A material might be?).

  Faculty are not required to have any training in instruction yet we allow them to start swimming out toward the drowning student (I really liked this analogy). You have opened my eyes....forget the occasional student who is so distressed that he/she comtemplated suicide...think of the thousands of students we are foolishly attempting to teach each day without any demonstrated skill level in instruction.

  I trust you will join me in my compain to improve higher education and reduce the untold loss of dollars by simply insisting that universities stop treating students like lesser adults and do away with untrained faculty.

• agree with Karl
• Posted by Larry on August 23, 2006 at 3:25pm EDT

• Karl, I would agree with you, except, for better or worse, courts do not recognize a cause of action in educational malpractice. Generally, “malpractice” actions requires that the defendant be a part of some profession. Usually with a licensing regime. A successful plaintiff would show that the defendant performed below the standard of care in that profession. Whether a “PhD” is a license or not is a grey area.

  “Negligence” on the other hand requires only that a plaintiff show that the defendant behaved not as a “reasonably prudent person [or other entity]”would, and what constitutes a RPP, has been the subject of much debate.

  I have tinkered intellectually with the idea, and everyone now and then people plead it, but it is pretty much unworkable. If anything, students might be able to sue under a “warranty” theory for deficient education. I don’t think this has ever succeeded in the US, yet. But, this requires some understanding (in writing or implied in fact or at law) that a product or service would perform a certain way.

  But, that said, on philosophical grounds, I agree with you. I don’t think that people with less than terminal degrees should teach classes. I think schools should explicitly state who will be teaching classes and their credentials. On legal grounds, whether there is some inherent breach by having a mere ABD teach courses, is anyone’s guess.

• Very, Very Complicated
• Posted by Kerissa on August 23, 2006 at 3:30pm EDT

• Larry, I've seen you post before on this topic so you must be very passionate about it. However, I must politely disagree with you.

  As a person in a support position a large university I interact with students on a regular basis. Some I would consider adults, while some I still consider children. Usually the point of difference for me is how mature and responsible the student is. Just because a student is 18 or older does not mean that they are truly an adult.

  As to the main subject, though. I feel that no matter what services are put in place by universities and colleges, suicidal students will continue attempting and taking their lives.

• To Larry
• Posted by Martin on August 23, 2006 at 3:30pm EDT

• Larry,

  I find your knowledge of the laws regarding this to be very thorough; however, I think you may misunderstand several of my points. One, I do not think Universities treat students like children, but if we do it is because it becomes necessary to do so to survive, what with the level of immaturity found in most post-adolescence. Secondly, our counseling center has never implied that we are prepared to offer psychological services to the extent that a psychiatrist might be able to provide. We mostly provied in the counseling center the same level of services we provide in the health center. Bandaids, asprin, and minor medical treatments, if and when a student needs to see a physician, he or she is required to visit a local practitioner. Having said that, would a university be held liable if a student asks for an asprin and then goes to his room and dies of a aneurism? Are we to be ready to read the minds of every student, or become so paranoid as to not provide the very basics in health and mental care? I believe that at my institution if a student is thought to be suicidal, we will intervene and have done so. We provide on campus every possible support mechanism to assist our students since we are, after all, in the business of taking children into adulthood. Lastly, I do not believe that it has been proven, not to my satisfaction and I have followed this case for some time now, that the university did not follow-through. What level consists of a complete "follow through"? That is saying that if a doctor's patient dies after a procedure the doctor become liable for the death because he did not follow through, but what if he did all that was possible in that particular situation? I believe that someone out there has to agree that this become less about right and wrong and more about a set of grieving parents who want someone to pay for an act that their own son committed. In short, the University did NOT kill their son.

• To Carl
• Posted by Martin on August 23, 2006 at 3:30pm EDT

• I believe that you are a bit off course there, Carl. This isn't about quality of education, this is about the responsibility of the university in intervention in the death of a student. However, if the educational system in the US is so flawed, then how do we explain the success of so many of it's graduates. But, enough of that, let's keep on task Carl, your reply may not be "A" material after all.

• Posted by Larry on August 24, 2006 at 9:45am EDT

• Kerissa, Unfortunately, you and I are not the judge of who is an adult. The legislature is. They say 18. I say 35. You want to impose a judicial test (with you being the judge). Legislature wins. But, we do agree about a few points. People will try to kill themselves no matter what. Perhaps it is just a fact of life: like car accidents, crying babies on planes, and war, and we should treat it as inevitable.

  Martin, You stated, “Having said that, would a university be held liable if a student asks for an asprin and then goes to his room and dies of a aneurism?” In response I note that the students parents would sue the health care provider under a malpractice theory. If the provider didn’t live up to the level of practice in the area, then she would be liable, but since the school is liable for torts committed by her in the course of her work, they must pay. The parents might also sue the school under a negligence theory. There, the question is whether, by providing an abbreviated infirmity, they breached some duty of care. In most circumstances (including the Allegheny college one), this part of the claim would fail, as the school did not claim to be offering anything more than adhesive strips and condoms.

  My suggestion, Martin, is to provide the basics in physical care, but to stay out of the mental health business. Most nurses can recognize something serious, and readily recommend that someone go to the hospital. Most mental health issues isn’t immediately dangerous, but apparently require months or years of treatment. Schools simply can’t do this. The fact that this kid was sending emails to a counselor indicates that the counselor was in over her head.

  These are not children. These are adults. If they were anywhere but a college campus, they would be treated exactly the same as a 30 or 50year old.

  Also, “thinking” someone is “suicidal” doesn’t mean that they are. Unless a student wants to seek out help from someone who holds themself out as qualified to treat a problem, it isn’t your problem. On top of this, deciding who you “think” is suicidal (but hasn’t tried it yet), is a dangerous business, as you will be marking these people for life. Even an accusation of mental illness can deprive people of jobs. Just leave well enough alone. Concentrate on doing what you can do well even better. So, in that vein, Carl raises a good point: too much undergrad tuition money seems to be being spent on student services, when schools should concentrate on teaching.

  Finally, Martin, as a procedural matter, in the Allegany trial, at this point there are allegations. Likely they are fact-specific allegations made under oath. (Perhaps with cross-examination.) But, I will concede that they have not been subject to a trial and proof. While you think that overarching sets of principles apply, we must go by the law as it exists, rather than what you think is a concept of “right” and “wrong.” True, the university didn’t kill their son. Their son killed their son. Instead, it is alleged, that a professional didn’t treat their son correctly.

• Posted by Anonymous on August 27, 2006 at 5:40pm EDT

• Unfortunately, none of you will ever know the truth about what happened because you weren't involved. And by the way, someone mentioned FERPA earlier in the discussion and forgot to say that in Allegheny College's handbook, their FERPA only applies to sharing the information about the student's academic record, NOT their medical records. You can carry on this debate till the ends of the earth, but this case is pretty cut and dry with the overwhelming evidence for the Mahoney family. The reporters out there need to start fact-checking a little more before submitting their incorrect articles about this case.

• Misinformed
• Posted by Kim on August 27, 2006 at 9:10pm EDT

• Let me tell all of you "know it alls" the facts of this trial. I've been in the court room day in and day out and I want you to know that the facts are overwhelming as to what the college didn't do in order to "protect their students." First off, did you all know that the college (every one) KNEW that he was suicidal for 2 MONTHS and only talked about what to do for him? Did you know that he did SIGN as well as told his counselor that she could call the family? Did you know his counselor DID NOT have an LPC nor at the time was she qualified to HEAD the department of counseling center? DID you KNOW that FERPA at AC applies only to academic records and is in their handbook???? Did you know that expert witnesses, including Dr. Jacobson who only testifies in a select number of cases, testified for the Mahoney's and told Allegheny college they were at fault for not notifying the parents after he READ ALL of the FACTS in the case? Did you all know that according to the laws of confidentiality, since the counselor did not hold an LPC that she wasn't held by the bounds of confidentiality? Did you all know that his fraternity brothers went to deans as well as the counselors begging for them to help him and they did NOTHING for 2 months prior to his death? Did you all know that Chuck told his counselor the same day that he killed himself that he was going to do it and SHE LET HIM WALK OUT OF HER OFFICE AND NOTIFIED NO ONE!!!!!!!! Oh, she did break confidentiality when she emailed one of the deans and asked what she should do and they decided AFTER 2 MONTHS OF DISCUSSION to call a meeting set for the day AFTER he hanged himself?

  Now, all of you parents should know that you prepare your children to go off to college in hope that they will be safe and if they are not, you would be notified. Your children do not tell you everything that goes on, but they do tell their counselor and he was begging for help. And you CAN NOT TELL ME that if this was your child, you would be even able to sit in a court room every day and listen to people WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD tell you that your child could have been saved and NO ONE CARED ENOUGH TO DO IT!!!

  How dare all of you, who don't even know the FACTS of this case, pass judgement on the parents of this boy who could have been helped but because the people they chose to be in the counseling center were not qualified to do so.

  Dr. Jacobson, who runs one of the best programs in the country, pointed fingers at all of those at Allegheny College and told them they "dropped the ball" several times and that they are all to blame for the loss of this boy and that if he were helped, he could have been saved and would have lived a very productive life.

  None of you have been in that court room nor have you heard the testimonies of the people in there, therefore you have no room to say ANYTHING on the basis of this bogus article written by someone who doesn't have a clue as to what the real story was and still is.

  In this case, it was up to the college to make a phone call somewhere knowing for 2 months that he was in danger, but they did NOTHING!!! And yes, it was their responsibility because they were the ones that knew what was going on at the time. OH, there was talk about what to do, what they could do, several meetings planned, interventions planned that never took place, planned phone calls to the parents that never took place, suggestions of perhaps an involuntary hospitalization, or a leave of absence from school, but none of it was followed up and now, it's too late.

  All of you are hypocrits if you believe for a minute that after knowing all of the FACTS and if it were your child you wouldn't do the same.

  There is a responsibility of the counselor to "protect" her patients at all costs and if it were too much for her to handle, then she should have gone to those who could have.

  These comments do nothing but make me sick to my stomach. Get ALL of the facts before you make a decision to pass along your opinion. If I had a student that told me for months that they didn't want to live and I did nothing, then I would be responsible. How was that not her responsibility to notify SOMEONE to at least find help for him. It would be different if the parents were aware and he did it any way. They were the parents, not the counselor and there is a standard of ethics that is to be met in cases of suicide/potential homicide that was signed by Chuck stating that in those cases, she had a responsibility to uphold and again SHE DID NOTHING! And she admitted that she knew she had a responsibility but didn't know what to do about it. Oh yes, all of you who are not in the court room but have all of the answers should know that Chuck had 31 warning signs that the counselor was aware and still, she sat and waited to act upon it.

  Don't always believe what you read.....there are a lot of underlying facts that are not mentioned in what you read because even the writers do not have all of the facts. GET THE FACTS BEFORE YOU MAKE REMARKS.

• One more thing
• Posted by kIM , One more thing to add on August 28, 2006 at 4:25am EDT

• that I left out was the fact that the "counselor" had Chuck as a "high risk suicide" for 2 months!!! Two months and did nothing. And you people are telling me that she's not responsible?! Many of you are ignorant of the facts and for that you all must be forgiven; however, sitting inside of the court room and hearing the actual "facts" of this case has really opened my eyes to the fact that all professionals have responsibilities and Mrs. Kondrot was irresponsible of hers and it cost a boy's life. Her own records implicate her! I've seen them. I've heard the testimony and believe me, if there wasn't a case to be tried here, then it would have gone away and it hasn't, has it?

  And Larry is right...the final decision was his, but the counselor had a responsibility to prevent that from happening. This isn't just a case of a one time counseling session gone bad. She had been his counselor back in 2000! She knew his history and knew that time was running out and didn't do any thing to prevent it. Maybe she felt he was expendable? The defense seems to think that he was. They did nothing because they believed he would have done it any way. So, let's play God!

  She even had in her notes that he was declining rapidly; he told her over and over he was loosing hope and according to Dr. Silverman, those were some of the many warning signs he displayed. All she had to do was make a phone call and NEVER should she have let him walk out of her office that day knowing he was struggling to live. He was begging for help and not one person did any thing for him. How would you feel if that happened to someone you loved? I think of my daughter and hope that someone is qualified to help her when she is away at school and is feeling that way. I hope someone takes the time to inform me that she is struggling. I hope someone values her life as I do. I can't even begin to imagine what the Mahoney's are feeling as they sit day after day listening to the facts that their son could have and should have been saved and wasn't because of neglect and unqualified staff. I watched the fraternity boys (6'5 and 280) sit on the stand, crying as they told of how they tried to help him and no one took the time to do it. I watched the parents cry as they heard that no one thought it necessary to help their son when he was reaching out for help. If the counselor isn't responsible, then who is? The parents? Their son was away at college telling them what he wanted them to hear and they believed that every thing was okay. The frat boys? They were the only ones trying to find help and they went to the proper authorities numerous times and left with the promise that something would be done and nothing was.

  By the way, Mrs. Kondrot received her LPC in April of 2002. Chuck died in February of 2002. She never should have been in that position without the proper training. They played Russian roulette with someone's life and the more that I know, the more convinced that all of you need to hear the entire story before you begin your bashing of the parents and believing that Allegheny College is the victim here. Unfortunately, the victim is gone.

• Kim and anon
• Posted by Larry on August 28, 2006 at 4:25am EDT

• Anonymous, Well, the case isn’t completely “cut and dry” as there remains triable issues. It is true that most people misunderstand FERPA, but many people like to justify all sorts of behaviors based on it.

  Kim, The reason we have civil trials in our country is to resolve factual disputes. If there was no remaining disputes of material fact, summary judgment would have been granted with regard to all defendants. You probably should take a step back and understand that Ferpa excludes mental health records, other statutes deal with other records. But, this exclusion applies to all schools, regardless of what is in the handbook. See 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(B)(iv).

  As a practical matter, Kim, “facts” are a matter of perception and politics, and even after a trial people still don’t believe what a jury finds. So, your statement that something is a “Fact” doesn’t make it any more or less true. Instead, you appear to be advocating for one side or the other. That said, the issue here more resemble a malpractice case then a negligence case.

  I am sorry that peoples’ comments make you sick, but it might help you to specifically rebut them rather than claiming to be a victim.

• The Verdict Is In
• Posted by Violet on September 1, 2006 at 2:00pm EDT

• The verdict is in and Allegheny College was found not guilty. Kim and Anonymous were wrong. The facts in their view weren't as cut and dry as they'd make you think. I knew Chuck, and I know a lot about this situation. Given the real facts, not the ones you have read in newspaper articles, this is the only logical decision the jury could have come to. For anyone who really wants to know the facts of this case, the Summary Judgment ruling was published a couple of months ago. There is an awful lot of information in it that shows just how one sided this case really was. Allegheny College may not have done as much as they could have, but they did as much as they were required by law to do.

• Posted by Ann Scott-Arnold on September 1, 2006 at 8:50pm EDT

• RE: "The problem with this school, ..." , is that they treated their students like children" as posted above.

  Sorry but that is NOT true about Allegheny. The students are treated as adults who are repsonsible for their own decisions and conduct.

  Anyone over 18 is an adult. Period. If they can enlist in the Army where they will be shot at, kill and maybe be killed without anyone intervening and saying they don't have the maturity to make the decision, then the same rule applies to college students. Moony and daddy don't get to know what is going on with their litle darling when they join the marines and the same applies to the the health records of any young adult - whether or not they are in college. (And that is HIPPA.)

  Kim and Anonymous are clearly partisan friends of the parents. Their version of the facts isn't even CLOSE to the details in the Meadville paper. Ran into people like that before I retired from practicing law - don't confuse them with the evidence adduced at trial, they hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe. As clients, that type was an outrageous nuisnace. You could tell them and tell them in words of one syllable what would or would not happen and not one single word would register on them.

  All of the comments above about counseling services and referrals to outside practitioners is, in this instance, academic. Allegheny is located in a small town of about 13,000 surrounded by farms with a very small local hospital. It is not an area rife with LPCs, pychologists or psychiatrists. Erie, PA is an hour away, Pittsburgh 2 hours and Cleveland 2 1/2 hours.

  The suggestion above that colleges simply require all students to have health insurance complete with mental health coverage befoe they enroll has got to be one of the STUPIDEST things written. Apparently that poster is oblivious to the fact that 46,000,000 people in this country do NOT have health insurance. That is about 16% of the population. Is a potential student to be rejected by colleges becaue his family can not afford health insurance - now an average of $5,000 for an individual and over $10,000 for a family? How outrageous and unfair. Not all college students from middle or lower incme families go to state colleges. Allegheny has always been able to admit students without consideration to their potential financial aid requriements. One of my classmates was the daughter of a lobstr fisherman in New England and recieved grants and scholarships from Allegheny that covered 95% of her costs with a student loan making up the balance. There were several people in my class similarly situated and none of their families could have purchased a health insurance policy today. (I am, by the way, an Allegheny alum.)

  Student health services have been provided by colleges for at least 40 years. Counseling services are used extensively but usually for things lke "how to I decide on a major" or "I don't know how to get along with my roommate" or "my parents and I don't get along and they are driving me crazy." Based upon the evidence adduced at trial, the young man is question was diagnosed with a very serious mental disorder by a physician in his hometown and was on lithium - a very serious and heavy-duty psychotropic drug. In view of that, I'm appalled that his parents saw fit to assist and allow him to return to a very intense and demanding college. (We are in the top 100 liberal arts schools and have academic requirements that are unheard of at nearly any other school.)

  I had clients wwhere it was an issue as to whether or not they should be involuntarily committed. The issue isn't whether they ever said that they have had thoughts about suicide but whether they express and intent to take action to commit suicide within the immediate future. If they said they had thought about ir and considered it an option but didn't plan to do anything at this time, they could not be committed to a facility. Nor is acting strange, acting unhappy or exhibitng the signs of depression grounds to commit them. The fact that a patient would be considered a "high risk" is not grounds for commital. That just means that the patient should be monitored and the issue of suicidal thoughts and action explored regularly with the patient.

  And, as a retired lawyer, I can tell you that this case was about MONEY - pure and simple. No lawyer is going to prep a med mal case (and thaat is what this came down to) and foot the expenses for the prep and expert witnesses without execting a substantial return. The parent smost certainly did not pay the litigation costs up front. I did litigation - federal rather than state but they are pretty much the same. The price tag to get through the trial would be about $80,000 - 100,000. No way could 2 teachers/public school employees write the check for that up front. They most likely had a no win, no fee arrangement but they had to be aimng for a very substantial number to get someone to even touch the case. They couldn't pay that kind of legal bill and expert witness bill and no one would represent unless the client wanted to go for a lot of money.

  (Sorry about any typos - these bifocal contacts are murder with a screen.)

• To Ann
• Posted by Anonymous on September 2, 2006 at 6:30am EDT

• Unfortunately, Ann, you can't always believe what you read. It's too bad that the paper only reported one side of the story which kept its readers misinformed.

• To Violet
• Posted by Anonymous on September 2, 2006 at 6:30am EDT

• You do realize that when a person states that they are going to harm themselves or do harm unto others, it is REQUIRED by law to inform the proper authorities. So, you're telling me that when Chuckie told his counselor that he was going to kill himself, she wasn't required to call the authorities? Oh wait, that's right, she wasn't even a licensed counselor so I guess that didn't apply to her "responsibilities". I find that a bit contradictory to what the law states. Instead, she broke down and cried saying that she couldn't handle him anymore and let him walk out the door to his tragic end. I really don't know how someone like that can live with themself after that. If the jury was really paying attention to what was going on in the courtroom, the verdict probably would have voted differently. Instead, one of the jurors said that she "didn't care what happened" and that "she just wanted to go home". Too bad Crawford County is such a college town, they are really backing the wrong people.

• Kim/aka Kelley Mahoney-sister of the deceased
• Posted by Kelley Mahoney , Kim/aka Kelley Mahoney on September 2, 2006 at 2:50pm EDT

• To the woman who told me that I didn't know the facts in this case,

  I knew the FACTS very well in this case because I lived it not once but twice and if you believe for one minute that any amount of money would be worth putting and grilling my mother on the stand for over 5 hours by their attorney; having my parents live and relive the horror of knowing their son could have been saved; being told they were horrible parents; listening to the fraternity boys who tried every means to save my brother and no one thought he was a priority and so on and so forth, then you are the one who needs the professional help. Oh yes, I KNEW the FACTS of the case and also knew that the jury only wanted to go home and so they voted in the easiest way possible. Just find them and ask them. How dare you write about something you know nothing about and condemn my parents for something they did for justice. My mother, for your information, is a school guidance counselor and my father is a superintendent of schools so your facts there are wrong as well. They are not public school teachers and they had a right to be able to save my brother!

  As for the Meadville Tribune and any journalist knows that getting names correctly in the article is learned in Journalism 101, they got several facts incorrect including names, so if you're going on that, then your information was unreliable.

  I don't appreciate your comments. When I wrote to this site, I did it so that others would know that there are 2 sides to every story, as I learned in my Journalism classes.

  My family has gone through hell these past few weeks and did it in order to make a statement that their irresponsibility caused the end result. This shouldn't happen on any campus and all the experts agreed that he could have been saved and there were things she could have done to save him.

  The law states that counselors/therapists are not required to prevent suicides unless in a hospital setting. However, there are special circumstances. Why is that even a law? That is the next step....my brother's death would not be in vain, I guarentee.

  We knew going into this that we wouldn't get a fair trial in Crawford County. It's a very small area where every one knows every one else, but we made a statement that will "send shock waves through the academic world". People's lives are more important than reputations.

  So if you're going to sit and criticize my family, at least talk to us before doing so because you will see a totally different side to the entire thing. My parents NEVER would have sued them had my brother and his friends had not told the entire community that he needed help.

  When they found my brother's body that night, Dean DiChristina told the boys, "We should have done something sooner. We should have listened." It's too late now, though, isn't it?

  My brother deserved much better than what he got from there and if any of you are too ignorant to understand that, then I'd rather not read any more of your comments. My parents weren't looking to blame any one. As parents and siblings, we blame ourselves enough. They just wanted to be informed so that they had the opportunity to help my brother because we believed it was our responsibility to do so. It should never have gotten this far in the first place and instead of watching my brother get married and live a successful life, I have a grave stone to remind me that he'll never do either.

  Utimately, it was my brother's decision to do what he did; however, he was asking, no begging, to be helped and no one thought he was important enough to help. They waited until he died to change their policies. Mrs. Kondrot didn't apply for her LPC until February 19, 2002-days AFTER my brother hung himself.

  So please, if you're going to write any thing at all, then you need to talk to us first before you formulate your opinions and not believe EVERYTHING you read. We've been going through this for 4.5 years now and we did what we set out to do.

  Infact, Dr. Cook, president of Allegheny College just FEDERAL EXPRESSED us a card. He knew the facts after he sat and listened for 2 weeks. All of you weren't there and you didn't hear the testimonies. It's over now and although we could appeal, we aren't going to do so because we don't want to go through the pain of this story again.

  I do and did know the FACTS as well as the entire story and I know that my parents were right in what they did although it caused them and my brother and I more pain. I still stand by them because I know that if they were told about my brother being "high risk" for suicide, my parents would have stepped in and helped him. They weren't given the opportunity and now it's too late. The counselor didn't even consult with Dr. Richards even when she knew she was in over her head! He even stated that he would have stepped in and done something to save my brother had she done so.

  Yea, the verdict was in.....the fight still continues.

  Kelley Mahoney-Rose
  Sister to the deceased

• Mahoney verdict
• Posted by Patty on September 6, 2006 at 4:35pm EDT

• My goodness, Kim/Kelly - how you can possibly place blame on the counselor? If someone has a pact with a depressed person that they'll be each other's support, shouldn't he/she notify the proper people - such as parents? And the fraternity brothers told "everyone?" - Why didn't they tell Chuck's parents? If they were mature enough to tell other "proper" authorities, they certainly were mature enough to tell your parents. And if this wasn't about money, why ask for such a large amount? And if Allegheny College would not have had a counseling center in the first place, would Chuck still be alive? You seem to focus on the "journalism" in this case, is that really an issue? And if you're parents are not "just" public school teachers, -- one is a counselor and one is a superintendent -- don't they have more psychology training than a public school teacher? And didn't Chuck have issues before he ever entered Allegheny? Wasn't there threat of a law suit previously against another counselor? Were the millions of dollars you were asking for just an after thought? And your mother's comment that she's a mother not a therapist -- isn't EVERY mother a therapist? Especially when a child has issues from an early age - like 5 years old. We all make mistakes as parents -- some of us just don't admit them.