Early Warnings: Spotting Mental Illness on Campus | Newsweek National News

Spotting Trouble

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

For mental health professionals, the Cho case also provides a grim reminder of the limitations of their ability to help the mentally ill from harming themselves--and others. "What happened at Virginia Tech is an incredibly rare, rare event that's the kind of thing that could elude the most comprehensive and collaborative and well-orchestrated set of services," says Ben Locke, cofounder of the Center for the Study of College Student Mental Health at Penn State University. "There are people out there, students and nonstudents, who will not accept services offered to them, and don't do anything [illegal] prior to a certain event."

It's a reminder that even with ample warning signs, some tragedies can be very difficult to prevent.

« Prev Page

The fact that an increasing number of incoming college students have mental illnesses that are 1) identified,
2) documented, and 3) proactively treated with medications, is increasing is to be celebrated, not disparaged! These young adults have taken responsibility for their own health, diminishing the workload of college support services rather than further burdening the institution!

Listed among the reasons why Cho was recognized (after the shooting) as a potential threat to self/others are that he had a documented mental illness, and that he took medication for the condition.

There is absolutely no disputing, or as much as a shred of minimalizing the tragedy of Virginia Tech. However, it is very disturbing that this article lists the fact that this student was previously identified as a person with a mental illness, and that he took medication for that condition as a "red flag" that he was a potential threat to self/ohters.

The warning signs manifested in his behavior, not simply because he had a psychiatric diagnosis, or because he was prescibed medication for that condition. He did not break the law, but the troubling incidents that preceded the tragedy certainly violated the school code of conduct, and otherwise raised concern.

This is very telling in terms of societal attitudes and prejudice regarding all persons with identified mental illness who are actively treating that condition. It says that someone whom we know is affected by a mental illness, and who treats that condition with medical supervision is to be suspected. It unabashedly claims that an illness, and the treatment of that illness, makes us correct in assuming that the person should be policed, and their privacy invaded.

This report also calls into question the fact that individuals with psychiatric conditions that substantially limit one or more major life activity are protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. In fact, one contributor suggests with no subtlety that Cho's mass murder and suiciide might have been prevented had the administration not been forbidden by law to impinge upon his civil rights.

The Americans With Disabilities Act does indeed protect the citizen who has depression and a number of other major psychiatric disorders from unwarranted invasion of their privacy and from discrimination and stigma which is based solely on the fact that they are identified as disabled.

If having a recognized diagnosis beomes the criteria by which we decide which students we should consider dangerous, there is an even greater need for protection under the law.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: frog_rain_coming @ 05/08/2009 2:16:17 PM

The fact that an increasing number of incoming college students have mental illnesses that are 1) identified,
2) documented, and 3) proactively treated with medications, is increasing is to be celebrated, not disparaged! These young adults have taken responsibility for their own health, diminishing the workload of college support services rather than further burdening the institution!

Listed among the reasons why Cho was recognized (after the shooting) as a potential threat to self/others are that he had a documented mental illness, and that he took medication for the condition.

There is absolutely no disputing, or as much as a shred of minimalizing the tragedy of Virginia Tech. However, it is very disturbing that this article lists the fact that this student was previously identified as a person with a mental illness, and that he took medication for that condition as a "red flag" that he was a potential threat to self/ohters.

The warning signs manifested in his behavior, not simply because he had a psychiatric diagnosis, or because he was prescibed medication for that condition. He did not break the law, but the troubling incidents that preceded the tragedy certainly violated the school code of conduct, and otherwise raised concern.

This is very telling in terms of societal attitudes and prejudice regarding all persons with identified mental illness who are actively treating that condition. It says that someone whom we know is affected by a mental illness, and who treats that condition with medical supervision is to be suspected. It unabashedly claims that an illness, and the treatment of that illness, makes us correct in assuming that the person should be policed, and their privacy invaded.

This report also calls into question the fact that individuals with psychiatric conditions that substantially limit one or more major life activity are protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. In fact, one contributor suggests with no subtlety that Cho's mass murder and suiciide might have been prevented had the administration not been forbidden by law to impinge upon his civil rights.

The Americans With Disabilities Act does indeed protect the citizen who has depression and a number of other major psychiatric disorders from unwarranted invasion of their privacy and from discrimination and stigma which is based solely on the fact that they are identified as disabled.

If having a recognized diagnosis beomes the criteria by which we decide which students we should consider dangerous, there is an even greater need for protection under the law.