Transcript Medical Amnesty Policies on College Campuses

Chris Mulvihill – Lehigh University
And
John Watson – Drexel University
Introductions

Chris Mulvihill
 Assistant Dean of Students
 Office of Student Conduct
 Oversaw the development and implementation of the institution’s
Medical Amnesty Policy

John Watson

Director of Alcohol, Other Drug, and Health Education
 The U. S. Department of Education’s Network Addressing
Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues
○ Regional Director DE, NJ, PA
○ Executive Committee member

Coordinator Regional “Think Tank” on Medical Amnesty
What are Medical Amnesty
Policies

Policies meant to increase the likelihood of
students receiving needed medical attention for
alcohol/drug poisoning by decreasing potential
consequences for patient and reporter.
 May require counseling after incident
 May not remove all consequences (campus vs. legal)
 Generally approach alcohol abuse issues from a health
and safety perspective
Medical Amnesty & Good
Samaritan
• Medical Amnesty Policy:
 Protect students who require emergency
medical attention from possible policy violations
or sanctions that may arise as a result of their
receiving emergency assistance
Medical Amnesty & Good
Samaritan
• Good Samaritan Policy:
 Protect students who summon assistance in
emergency situations from possible policy
violations or sanctions that arise as a result
Philosophy of Medical Amnesty
Policies
Health and Safety of Students is Primary
Concern
 Members of the Community Have a
Responsibility for Each Other
 Part of Emergency Response
 Roadblocks to Seeking Medical
Assistance should be removed when
possible.

Opposing Views

Condones underage and/or excessive
drinking.

Does not provide consequences for
actions.

Sends mixed message if criminal
amnesty is not possible.
How did Lehigh’s Policy Happen?

Student Initiative
 Initial resistance from administration
 After many conversations committee formed
to develop plan

Policy written after consulting other
campus policies (Cornell, Dartmouth,
etc.)
 Policy vetted by campus community
(including police, General Counsel, Risk
Management)
How did Lehigh’s Policy Happen?
Released in Spring Semester 2007
 Highly publicized for Fall 2007
 Ingrained as part of the campus culture
since Fall 2007.

“Network” Regional Think Tank
9 participants
 Developed points for consideration

 Will be covered in other areas

Policy – connected to larger idea of
taking responsibility
 Drexel “Dragon CHOICES Network”
 Penn “Say Something”
Drexel Policy – In process
Staff/Administration considering policy
 Explored benchmark and area schools
 Students Simultaneously brought the
issue forward
 Currently Student Conduct is weaving
language into existing policy for review –
i.e. sanctions for violations where
medical assistance is needed

Implementation
 Keys







to successful implementation
Involve institutional leadership from the outset.
Review other institution’s polices and speak to colleagues.
Ensure that all constituent groups are involved or at least informed
of the issue.
Involve campus security/campus police at the outset.
Involve your general counsel’s office before implementation.
Do what is best for your students and your institution.
Make sure that the name of the policy is reflective of your intention.
Alternate Names

– Responsible Action Protocol
 (Georgia, Rollins)

– Medical Emergency Assistance Program
 (Ohio U.)
 – Health & Safety Related Emergency
Consideration
 (NYU)
Possible Problems

Issues related to law enforcement.
 Your policy may not be able to grant
amnesty for criminal prosecution.
 Implication of “Amnesty”

Issues related to parents
 Parents may feel that the policy isn’t fair if it
doesn’t apply to their student.
 Parent groups – key stakeholder (if
applicable)
Possible Problems

Issues related to external message
 Could be perceived as going “soft” on
underage drinking.
 Consistency of policy enforcement and
application
 Student perception of inequitably - sanctions

Others
Q&A
