To ask you too attend a candlelight vigil tomorrow evening in Edinburgh, Bristol or London

[Sophforthe100]

.. for the 100 students every year who take their own lives every year.

The law needs to change so that Universities have a duty of care to their students.

Fine out more: www.forthe100.org.uk/vigil

I'm a very regular Mumsnetter who has name-changed to post this.

You keep repeating this over and over, yet fail to say
a) why a non-medical institution should take statutory responsibility for the medical issues of their students
b) what that responsibility would actually involved beyond telling their parents
c) why you’re not instead campaigning to improve the system that is actually designed to treat MH issues, rather than their place of learning which is not?

They shouldn’t be tough questions - these are exactly the things that would be discussed in parliamentary debate so you need answers to them for this to go anywhere.

Universities have a legal duty of care to their staff. They do not have a legal duty of care to their students.

Around and around again we go.

But the OP just keeps repeating the phrase ”duty of care” and refuses to explain what she means.

Perhaps you can explain if you think everyone else here is so hard of understanding? I am certainly not being deliberately obtuse, I genuinely don’t understand what the OP thinks I, as an academic, should be doing (and currently lack) to “teach with reasonable care and skill” and what the specific “duty of care” I receive as an employee is that a student doesn’t (particularly when staff counselling, for example, has been removed to focus on provision for students at my university).

I doubt that anyone on here feels anything other than sympathy for the OP if she has personal experience of this, but the answer is not to make bad laws to try to assuage anyone’s pain, especially when that risks making criminals out of people who are not health professionals.

It’s a bit like saying I’m being failed by my dentist so I want Boots to take statutory liability for the care of my teeth because they sell toothpaste and their pharmacists can advise on minor matters such as mouth ulcers and denture care.

It makes no sense, would overburden a service not intended for that purpose and would actually result in poorer outcomes for the patients involved.

@GCAcademic i think if you’re participating in a campaign that you expect to be debated in Parliament then enacted in universities across the country placing enormous responsibility on them, you should expect to be robustly challenged regardless of personal circumstances. You can have every sympathy for someone affected by suicide, but disagree with the aims of their campaign, and everyone has given OP a fair chance to explain but it seems she can’t. It all feels very knee jerky, ‘someone else should have done more’ but not being able to say what or why.

I’m also worried about how it would open university workers to prosecution which I feel would be deeply unfair. What about them?

OP, can you give some concrete examples of what you want universities to do?

Because I'm betting that it will either be things they already do (like provide support services over and above the NHS services supposedly available to us all) or just not possible like breaking confidentiality.

University isn't school, if 150 out of 200 students turn up for a lecture that's actually very good, we don't go chasing the other 50. They've chosen not to come, that's their decision. We do actually get in touch with students who have bad engagement but if they don't respond or disclose whatever is going on, what can we do? If they do disclose something then we direct them to people who are actually trained to deal with that and then look after the academic side in terms of extensions etc.

What exactly is it that you want us to do differently?

@Moonicorn Yes, I agree. No one on here is asking anything that wouldn’t naturally be raised in Parliament, by universities and in the press. These are reasonable questions to ask when legislation is being proposed, not people being mean.

And as I mentioned above and have personal experience of, would (analagously) allow the dentist an excuse to refuse to provide necessary services that should be provided by those with dental expertise, because they know you have access to Boots.

It all feels very knee jerky, ‘someone else should have done more’ but not being able to say what or why.

I agree, the crux of it is this someone else should have done something and therefore there is this someone else who is made responsible and to blame.

Here are a few examples then - although I expect the Uni employees who keep being defensive on these points will have a response to them:

1. If a student has given consent for the parents to be informed about their mental health problems and they know the student is suicidal, inform the parents.
2. If the University is aware a student is having a severe mental health crisis then do not continue with the process of dismissing them from the University - by email - without consideration.
3. If a student has visited support services with a mental health issue that has not been resolved, do not tell them they cannot have a follow up appointment with Uni support services until the next academic year.

Many Universities have excellent policies in place for safeguarding student mental health - but they are not legally required to follow the guidance.

Here are a few examples then - although I expect the Uni employees who keep being defensive on these points will have a response to them:

FFS. We are not being 'defensive'. We are pointing out obvious flaws in the idea from the perspective of being inside the system - in other words we have expert knowledge about something we are invested in and which will affect us.

I am not uni lecturer, was a student who actually used the services.

Few points

1. Yes, possible failure, however, the student if suicidal should be supported by more trained medical professionals via NHS and local MH unit who then should be contacting parents if the student wishes to. This is though an individual failure not whole industry failure. Uni wellbeing services are not, and should not be acting as MH crisis unit.
2. Again, individual failure, but yes, process should be better. Can't see how you legislate for this though...
3. No. They should be signposted to GP to get support. Unies should, in my opinion, deal with some basic stress and signpost rest back to NHS. Since you keep comparing it to employers, this would be exactly the same. See point 1

Frankly, very frankly, it just feels like people are looking to point fingers. When suicide happens, it often leaves more questions than answers. It's understandable to know why. But this is not the correct way.

Now I ask again. Why is only uni responsible and not the GP the girl visited.

Its the students reponsiblity to inform parents, consent or not. I dont agree that universities should be involved in that.

I would imagine that Universities dismiss students with a lot of consideration, moreso if they know the student has been ill. Presumably the student is signed off sick by their GP if they are not able to continue? If not, why not?

I dont agree with the 3rd point either. The student should be signposted to their GP or other support systems which are available. There may be universities who can offer ongoinng support but there will be others who simply dont have this available.

I can possibly get on board with 1 and 2 although I wouldn’t want them imposed as a statutory duty, more a ‘best practice’. I suppose the glaring question is if a student wants their parents to know they’re having a MH crisis, why don’t they tell their parents themselves? If the parents are expected to act having received this communication does the statutory responsibility then transfer to them? If not, why not? What if a deeply distressed student agrees for them to be contacted only to change their mind but it has been done? Would they sign a disclaimer? What would be disclosed, full notes or just ‘your child is mentally unwell’?

As for dismissing them I can see how putting it on ice would help but again, that’s not a statutory responsibility as such, more internal procedure that the university is entitled to dictate for itself. What if the student in question has behaved in a threatening manner towards fellow students due to their MH issues? Do they expel them or are they forced to keep them on because of their MH struggles? Does this apply to diagnosed conditions only, as with any other ‘extenuating circumstances’ type process?

As for 3, mental health issues are rarely ‘resolved’ within a matter of weeks or months so I think that’s wholly unrealistic. This is absolutely the point at which care should be through the GP, you still haven’t said why universities should or are equipped to deal with long running mental health problems.

My issue with making all this a legal obligation is that it is basically unenforceable and as PP said, transfers the NHS duty of care to an institution fundamentally not there to do it.

There have been failings in GP care as well as Unis. No one is saying they don't have a responsibility too.

www.leighday.co.uk/news/news/2022-news/student-theo-brennan-hulme-was-failed-by-university-of-east-anglia-and-norwich-health-care-trust-say-parents/

Please don't blame parents for their children's suicide.

I'm sure there is not one parent who's child has suffered from any MH issues who has not already asked themselves if they were to blame or should not have done things different.

I don't blame parents for their children's suicide.
Simply pointing out that maybe the issues are bit more complex than just uni and individuals like tutors getting the blame.

If a student has given consent for the parents to be informed about their mental health problems and they know the student is suicidal, inform the parents

Who should do this? How is all this to be resourced in a system already stretched to the limits? How is that consent verified? I agree with a PP who said this could be best practice if it was clear that consent was given and given freely but it should not be an expectation or mandated.

If the University is aware a student is having a severe mental health crisis then do not continue with the process of dismissing them from the University - by email - without consideration.

I agree that the email communication given to students is shocking and often legalistic but I don't think this is a matter for legislation.

If a student has visited support services with a mental health issue that has not been resolved, do not tell them they cannot have a follow up appointment with Uni support services until the next academic year.

WHO PAYS FOR ALL THIS? Have you any idea what the waiting lists are like? There are often waits of several months for an appointment. What about all those students waiting in the queue who might be suicidal? The queue is there because of inadequate external support.

Focusing on shoring up NHS support is the real way to go. Not relying on the university to be a mental health provider!

My thinking on this is the same like "why don't they temporarily withdraw".
Because parents are "oh so proud darling" or "you must go to uni we all did" and they don't want to disappoint them by not managing.

Yep. I see a lot of this!

I agree, but I don’t think blaming the university is any fairer either. When faced with a grieving parents it’s difficult to disagree without looking heartless, so it’s hard for them to defend themselves here. It’s always going to be a case of ‘we could have done more’ as that’s a standard reply by any organisation when faced with something like this, but it doesn’t mean they didn’t do an adequate job or what was reasonably expected of them.

I dont blame parents at all, not sure where you are getting that from. Suicide is always the choice of the deceased.

But you're opening a can of worms as someone says above, if you expect the Uni to have a statutory duty to inform parents where consent is given, whose statutory duty does the follow up from that come from? The parents, the student, the uni?

What if the parents dont respond, what if they respond i the wrong way, what if the student changes their mind or denies they gave consent. Can someone sign a disclaimer, what if later someone says 'well they didnt have capacity due to their mental state to make any decisions like this'. Surely you can see this is a massive can of worms to involve a 3rd party into information sharing on a medical matter?

If the student wants their parents to know then they need to inform them. If they dont, then thats their choice.

how does the proposed “duty of care” for universities work for students living at home?

wouldnt the parents for more in-depth knowledge of their own child?

You keep repeating this without specifying what you think universities have to legally provide to staff in terms of "duty of care" that they don't have to provide to students. Do you think that if a member of staff committed suicide the university would be held responsible for not doing enough to prevent it?

You keep repeating this without specifying what you think universities have to legally provide to staff in terms of "duty of care" that they don't have to provide to students. Do you think that if a member of staff committed suicide the university would be held responsible for not doing enough to prevent it?

Exactly.