If a patients medical records are confidential, how do we know that the Virginia Tech killer was in a mental hospital?
When one is involuntarily committed, it is generally as a result of a court order, and court records are public information.
Not necessarily. I don’t know the specifics of this case. However, generally speaking, one can be placed on a 72-hour mental health hold without a court order. In Colorado, as in many other states, it can be done by law enforcement officers, paramedics, doctors, or mental health professionals if the patient represents a “danger to themselves or others.”
In these cases, the ambulance and hospital records would be confidential. I’m unsure of the confidentiality of a police record, however.
St. Urho
Paramedic
As I understand it (and the news is not making it easy to understand) he was “in a mental hospital” only to the extent that he was briefly held for observation. “Held for observation” is to “committed” as "arrested " is to “found guilty of a crime.” Legal requirements for a hold vary but (in my state, for example), the determination to hold for observation is made by medical personnel; a legal hearing comes into it only if the person meets one or more of a small number of criteria for immediate harmfulness or highly impaired judgment and refuses voluntary treatment. It appears to be the case (or was last time I looked at an article on this) that Cho was held for observation, quickly moved to voluntary status, not committed, and did not remain at the facility for treatment.
Since his records should be confidential and his parents hold privilege after his death (at least, in my state they would), I am also curious why this information was so readily available.
I’m seeing a lot of contradictory news saying he was committed when the description suggests to me that held for observation, which is an important distinction whether we’re talking about the kind of evaluation and treatment he received or whether it was legal for him to own a firearm. There was a histrionic piece in the New York Times the other day that was one of the more inaccurate articles I’ve seen them write.
I hit submit before I was done. Here’s a better response:
As I understand it (and the news is not making it easy to understand) he was “in a mental hospital” only to the extent that he was briefly held for observation. “Held for observation” is to “committed” as "arrested " is to “found guilty of a crime.” Legal requirements for a hold vary but (in my state, for example), the determination to hold for observation is made by medical personnel; a legal hearing comes into it only if the person meets one or more of a small number of criteria for immediate harmfulness or highly impaired judgment and refuses voluntary treatment. It appears to be the case (or was last time I looked at an article on this) that Cho was held for observation, quickly moved to voluntary status, not committed, and did not remain at the facility for treatment.
Since his records should be confidential and his parents hold privilege after his death (at least, in my state they would), I am also curious why this information was so readily available. I assumed there were subpoenas ordering this information to be released to the police and that they in turn reported it publicly or it became a matter of public record. I’d think duty to warn/Tarasoff wouldn’t apply after the crime was committed since they are warning mechanisms.
I’m seeing a lot of contradictory news saying he was committed when the description suggests to me that held for observation, which is an important distinction whether we’re talking about the kind of evaluation and treatment he received or whether it was legal for him to own a firearm. There was a histrionic piece in the New York Times the other day that was one of the more inaccurate articles I’ve seen them write.
Shoshana, you may know better, but I do recall reading that on at least one occasion, his release was formalized by order of a magistrate. So there does appear to be a court record in his case. Perhaps some more details could be ferreted out…
It could just be family members or other aquainteces giving the info. That isn’t restricted.