|
|
 |
 |
Inside Higher Education
The Duty to Prevent
Suicide
Top court in Massachusetts rules that colleges and professors in some
cases may be sued for failing to prevent students from killing
themselves.
By Scott Jaschik
May 8, 2018
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on Monday found that the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and some of its professors and
officials, could not be sued for the suicide in 2009 of a graduate
student who jumped off a building and killed himself. He did so shortly
after being told by a faculty member that an email he had sent was
unprofessional and rude.
While the unanimous ruling is a legal victory for MIT, the court also
found that colleges have an obligation in some cases to prevent
suicides and may be sued for failing to do so. Significantly, the
finding extends beyond those on campuses with expertise in mental
health. There are situations, the court found, where professors and
others could be sued for failing to do so.
That is crucial in part because many students who attempt suicide have
never used campus mental health services.
The ruling stresses that college students are not all alike -- in this
case the student was an adult, living off campus and seeking treatment
outside MIT. But even in such cases, the court found, there can be
legal obligations for a college and its professors.
"Moral blameworthiness on the part of a university in failing to act to
intervene to save a young person's life, when it was within the
university's knowledge and power to do so, is understood and accepted
by our society," said the decision.
Even if MIT and other universities have missions that are primarily
academic, their role extends into many aspects of student life, the
court said. "Universities are clearly not bystanders or strangers in
regards to their students."
While the ruling is by a Massachusetts court, the decision comes at a
time of rising pressure on colleges to protect students in cases that
some college leaders say may be unrealistic, or may discourage colleges
from enrolling students with mental health issues. In March, the
California Supreme Court found that public colleges in the state must
warn and shield their students from potential violent acts.
The Massachusetts ruling is particularly notable for its findings about
"non-clinicians" such as professors and deans who are not trained in
mental health issues and do not work in campus counseling centers
For professors and others in this category, the court found, the
obligation to act to prevent a possible suicide is limited to
circumstances where they have "actual knowledge" of a previous suicide
attempt while a student was enrolled, or shortly before enrolling, or a
student has communicated "stated plans or intentions to commit suicide."
The faculty member or other "non-clinician" has the obligation of
"initiating the university's suicide prevention protocol." If there is
not one, the obligation is to inform someone, such as a trained medical
professional, who can review the situation and intervene if necessary.
If medical care is refused, the college employee has an obligation to
notify the student's emergency contact, the court found. The ruling
notes that students' mental health is subject to change, and these
obligations relate to current or recent events, not a professor's
knowledge about something that happened many years prior.
"This limited duty takes a number of the complex and competing
considerations discussed above into account," the ruling said. "First,
it respects the privacy and autonomy of adult students in most
circumstances, relying in all but emergency situations on the student's
own capacity and desire to seek professional help to address his or her
mental health issues."
The decision continued: "Second it recognizes that non-clinicians
cannot be expected to probe or discern suicidal intentions that are not
expressly evident. It also acknowledges the scope of the suicide risk
on campus and seeks to impose realistic duties and responsibilities on
the universities, allowing them to respond with their own suicide
prevention protocols … Finally, this limited duty is consistent with
the modern university relationship with its students, which is no
longer in loco parentis but rather provides for the students'
independence and self-determination."
The lawsuit that led to Monday's ruling was filed by the father of Han
Duy Nguyen, the graduate student who ended his life in 2009. The court
found that the none of the situations outlined for institutional and
individual responsibility to prevent suicide applied in Nguyen's case,
even though some faculty members were aware in general that he was
struggling with mental health issues.
The court ruling noted that Nguyen "repeatedly made clear" that he
wanted to separate his mental health issues from his academic work.
Further, he was being treated outside MIT for those issues.
Nguyen tried to kill himself twice prior to 2009 -- once in 2002 and
once in 2005. But the ruling noted that these incidents were well
before he enrolled at MIT, and said there was no evidence that faculty
members knew of these suicide attempts.
Jeffrey S. Beeler, the lawyer for the Nguyen family, told The Boston
Globe that he was disappointed that the court had not held MIT
responsible in this case. But Beeler said that the ruling would help
other students.
“There can be little doubt that the rule of the Nguyen case will save
student lives going forward,’’ he said. “Contrary to the position of
[higher education institutions] … the court has explicitly found that
they do owe a duty of care to their students at risk of suicide.”
Many colleges in Massachusetts filed briefs in the case, backing MIT
and urging the court to reject the lawsuit.
MIT released a statement after the ruling that said in part, "The
well-being of our students is of paramount importance to the Institute:
MIT already offers a robust network of student support resources and
services, including comprehensive mental health counseling, and
continually considers ways to enhance those resources.”
|
|
|
|
