Should the parents take the blame?
locallyunscene
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">A sad story for all involved</div>Normally I'm all for parents taking responsibility for their "kids", but I feel differently about this one. {<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/15/tech.suicide/index.html?eref=rss_topstories" target="_blank">link</a>} University isn't for baby sitting but you'd think Virginia Tech of all places would pay attention to suicidal warning signs.
What does everyone else think?
What does everyone else think?
Comments
I don't know the answer to either, but I can see where you might be going with your suggestion about the university, considering that they had prior knowledge according to the article. But why the parents? I need clarification on that one. I don't see anything that would point towards the parents specifically, so I am worried that I may be missing part of the picture.
Could the school have done more? Sure. The family? Yes. The RPI students? Yep. The Virginia Tech community? Uh huh. But blame is only useful if it causes some positive change. And the only possible change here seems to be the ka-ching type that the father could sue the school for, or some policy which would violate students' privacy rights.
In fact, why don't you, anyone who reads these words, blame yourself vicariously? And use it to be motivated to speak kind words to someone who doesn't expect it, or let your friends and family know what they mean to you, and work with others to lift up those who are down. Don't let them pass unnoticed.
I think they do because the school seemed to handle this very poorly. They should have been informed at the very least. Universities, at least here in the U.S., reserve the right to "call your parents" if you've done something wrong. That's a two way street IMO.
lol
I feel much safer with red signs rather than armed friendly classmates. Good job attorneys. Why don't they just put big red signs: "No killing people on campus" Then they wouldn't be liable, and all would be right in the universe.
Yeah, the health center people didn't do enough. Sometimes it just takes motivated people in the right roles. A couple phone calls between the RPI students and health center would have shown it not to be a hoax, justifying more than a visit by the police. Health center people could call the boy, go with the police to his room, etc. I don't like sue-age, but VTech should have fired/hired people to demonstrate action anyway.
The problem here is that there is only so much you can do with out sacrificing rights to privacy. If the student never asked for help, and told the cops somethign along the lines of "nope, I am good, how are you guys?", there really isn't much else they CAN do.
Sure, a legal guardian can commit you and/or force you to go to help, but at 18, you don't technically have a legal guardian (unless proven mentally unfit), and thus can do what you damn well please.
Some one telling the mental health office "this person is a risk to them selves" will generate "ok, we will go talk to him" but that is ALL they can do. Maybe some one from the college should have gone with, but tbh, the police are also trained for these types of things.
It doesn't look like any one really screwed up here, it is a sad case all things said, but there isn't much more you can do.
Sure, a legal guardian can commit you and/or force you to go to help, but at 18, you don't technically have a legal guardian (unless proven mentally unfit), and thus can do what you damn well please.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The main problem I have, besides the university insisting it handled the incident correctly, is that the parents weren't notified of any problems until after the student's death.
<!--quoteo(post=1676002:date=Apr 16 2008, 01:39 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Apr 16 2008, 01:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676002"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some one telling the mental health office "this person is a risk to them selves" will generate "ok, we will go talk to him" but that is ALL they can do. Maybe some one from the college should have gone with, but tbh, the police are also trained for these types of things.
It doesn't look like any one really screwed up here, it is a sad case all things said, but there isn't much more you can do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the thing is this whole series of events was a very unfunny comedy of errors along with steadfast denial in the face of facts. University policy is to send a counselor, not police officers. The police report says the officers went there regarding a "welfare check"(it was supposed to be "wellness check"). The school continues to claim the police are trained for this type of event. But the handling of the event suggests otherwise to me.
The Wellness vs Welfare thing is simply college term vs police term it seems.
Again, what more could they have done? That is the big problem.
heck, it should be noted that it was a month between them checking on him and the actual suicide.
I would consider threats of suicide an emergency.
<!--quoteo(post=1676007:date=Apr 16 2008, 02:06 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Apr 16 2008, 02:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676007"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Wellness vs Welfare thing is simply college term vs police term it seems.
Again, what more could they have done? That is the big problem.
heck, it should be noted that it was a month between them checking on him and the actual suicide.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here in the states a welfare check is a bank check you get from the gov't if you're unemployed, but looking for a job, or unable to be employed for some reason. It has a completely different meaning than "wellness check". I thought GB had the same thing, but I guess they call it something different.
As for Welfare vs Wellness
I am American <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
If you see what they said (They found both of the people with the same name and reported him as 'ok'), it is kinda obvious that they were doing a wellness/welfare check, not hitting up a deadbeat. In fact, the other guy said that they specifically asked about the guy who sent the email.
(oh, and in euro land it would be a cheque, which they will all tell you is exactly why it should be spelled that way so as to avoid confusion)
Some other random points:
1) He never sought help. Until some one seeks help it is just about impossible to give it to them (both legally and practically)
2) the ONLY person who really seemed to know that he was suicidal was his WoW buddy, not his parents, not his ROOMMATE!
Again, tragic situation, but due to our priorities (that I do still agree with) nothing else really could have been done.
The only thing that might be considered 'wrong' was that a shrink didn't go with the cops, but even there, they couldn't have done much else.
NOTE: Don't confuse with dying for a cause which can be patriotism to that cause. (or murder I guess, depending on the perspective) Dying for another is sacrifice, not suicide.
Should parents take the blame for selfish people, especially those who murder others at the same time?
Well I think it's going to depend on the situation, but generally no I don't.
But "suicide is the epitome being selfish?" That's a generalisation, meaning it should apply to all cases. So what about this one:
A girl I knew some years ago. Her mother committed suicide. Drowned herself. She had cancer, terminal. She was still in an okay condition at the time, but the cancer was spreading every which way and the doctors gave her about half a year in declining health. She took the only way out.
I wouldn't call her choice selfish. You might argue that she deprived her family of her presence for half a year just to save herself from a prolonged, painful death, but I would say she saved not only herself from that death, but also her family from having to wittness it. Although I didn't specifically ask, I got the strong impression that the family suspected she might do something like this, and that it didn't come as as much of a shock as suicide normally does.
I would let you get away with labeling her choice as a little selfish (and no more), but not the epitome of selfishness. I could think of many things that could possibly be the epitome of selfishness, and I can't decide on a single one, but it's not one you can slap on suicide across the board.
NOTE: Don't confuse with dying for a cause which can be patriotism to that cause. (or murder I guess, depending on the perspective) Dying for another is sacrifice, not suicide.
Should parents take the blame for selfish people, especially those who murder others at the same time?
Well I think it's going to depend on the situation, but generally no I don't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pff, 50% genes and 50% socialisation. Thats you, thats me, nobody can deny it!
Lets see, 50% genes come 100% from the parents and 50% socialisation come to around 60% from the parents. So, yes parents should be blamed to 80%!
Lets see, 50% genes come 100% from the parents and 50% socialization come to around 60% from the parents. So, yes parents should be blamed to 80%!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like the cut of your jib, sir. And lolf I would wsay he's 32% serious. (50% nature + 50% nurture - 60% parent socialization) * 80% blame.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) the ONLY person who really seemed to know that he was suicidal was his WoW buddy, not his parents, not his ROOMMATE!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can understand his parents not knowing but you do have a point about his roommate. Still the school should have followed their own policy. Imagine if this guy had, g~d forbid, had gone the suicide by police route. Would you then agree that the university should have actually followed up on the email, and had acted improperly?
Nobody should be at blame.
The guy wanted to end his life, let him. Only time we should stop somebody is if they are threatening others besides himself. And since apparently he wasn't threatening anybody else, let him do his own ending.
He was probably over stressed, breaking down, school gets hard, I'm sure it was his only life. At least for my asian-oriented friends, school is a big deal to mostly their parents.
So he shot himself, his choice, nobody elses fault. EVEN if he did get help. He still might of blasted himself.
<i>It's cold I know, but just my thoughts.</i> If somebody wants to kill themselves, let them, I don't see the big deal in it. Of course I'd act a bit differently if it was one of my friend or family members, but I wouldn't go all about sueing somebody.
Yes.
What I said is what I meant. We can't force people into counseling, and a 15 min (being nice here) talk with a a counselor outside his door would not have likely done anything either (probably would have been a 2 min talk consisting of "yes, I am fine, now sod off my private property").
Yes, I KNOW it sucks, but you know what? until some one comes up with a good solution, or even a reasonable suggestion for what the college should have done, then I am saying they did all they reasonably could.