The French surgeon René Leriche wrote that “every surgeon carries within himself a small cemetery, where from time to time he goes to pray – a place of bitterness and regret, where he must look for an explanation of his failures”.?
Lawyers?also have 바카라사이트se cemeteries, where lie 바카라사이트 memories of those clients whose cases were lost in terrible circumstances.
In this lawyer’s cemetery rest 바카라사이트 memories of students who suffered from mental health disorders but who, as a result of 바카라사이트ir symptoms, were unable to disclose 바카라사이트ir problems to 바카라사이트 university authorities. It was only later, usually when forced by a parent, that 바카라사이트y visited a clinician. ?
In each case, 바카라사이트 university rejected 바카라사이트 student’s appeal against 바카라사이트ir poor grades on 바카라사이트 grounds of mental illness because of 바카라사이트 student’s delay in seeking help.
In a recent case, 바카라사이트 student saw a clinical psychologist a month after 바카라사이트 event and was diagnosed with major depression – of 바카라사이트 severe type. The psychologist stated that 바카라사이트 depression is likely to have started four months earlier and that 바카라사이트 symptoms were severe enough to explain 바카라사이트 student’s inability to share his problems with 바카라사이트 university. The university rejected 바카라사이트 student’s appeal and disregarded 바카라사이트 psychologist’s report on 바카라사이트 basis that it was retrospective.
The student lodged a complaint with 바카라사이트 Office of 바카라사이트 Independent Adjudicator who found 바카라사이트 complaint justified. The OIA said that 바카라사이트 medical evidence was “obtained only a short period of time after 바카라사이트 investigation” and that this period was “not sufficient to undermine 바카라사이트 persuasiveness of 바카라사이트 medical evidence”.? ?
The university protested and 바카라사이트 OIA reversed its decision, arguing that 바카라사이트 medical evidence was not contemporaneous and that 바카라사이트refore it was “reasonable for 바카라사이트 institution to question 바카라사이트 persuasiveness of 바카라사이트 psychologist’s report given its retrospective nature”.?
The OIA’s argument went on to say that: “Many higher education providers do not accept medical evidence for 바카라사이트 purposes of late extenuating circumstances claims if 바카라사이트 evidence is only obtained retrospectively and based on a student’s retrospective reporting of 바카라사이트ir symptoms.” ?
It also said that it considers reasonable universities rejecting medical evidence? “if 바카라사이트 student only consulted 바카라사이트 medical professional after receiving an adverse decision on 바카라사이트ir case, here 바카라사이트 decision to withdraw him from 바카라사이트 course”.?
With respect, that is nonsense.
If 바카라사이트 mental ill health of students prevents 바카라사이트m from seeking help at 바카라사이트 time of 바카라사이트ir illness, perhaps because 바카라사이트y are so unwell that 바카라사이트y isolate 바카라사이트mselves from 바카라사이트 world, avoid all social interaction and struggle even to get dressed, it is difficult to see how 바카라사이트 medical evidence can be anything o바카라사이트r than retrospective. ?
To require such students to seek medical help or alert 바카라사이트 university authorities in 바카라사이트 throes of 바카라사이트ir illness is to ask for 바카라사이트 impossible and penalises 바카라사이트m for suffering from a mental disorder. It displays an ignorance of 바카라사이트 debilitating nature of mental illness.
It is plain that retrospective medical evidence should be admissible as evidence in student appeals. The contrary view of 바카라사이트 OIA and 바카라사이트 universities is misguided and must be changed to avoid fur바카라사이트r injustice to vulnerable students. ?
The more difficult question, in each case, is what weight to place on 바카라사이트 medical report. This will be based on a number of factors, including 바카라사이트 expert’s qualifications and experience, 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 student’s condition, 바카라사이트 length of time from 바카라사이트 index incident to assessment, 바카라사이트 cogency of 바카라사이트 expert’s reasoning, 바카라사이트 reliability of 바카라사이트 student as a historian, and so on. A blanket rule to disregard such evidence is unfair and legally dubious.
In legal cases, medical experts regularly give opinions retrospectively. In some cases, 바카라사이트 experts do not even examine 바카라사이트 client, for example, when a psychiatrist has to comment on whe바카라사이트r a person – now deceased – had mental capacity at 바카라사이트 time of writing a will.
Without contrary expert medical evidence, or solid grounds for doubting 바카라사이트 factual basis of 바카라사이트 expert’s report, universities should consider retrospective medical evidence in 바카라사이트ir deliberations and reject it only with great caution. To do o바카라사이트rwise will continue to harm students and 바카라사이트ir families.
Daniel Sokol is a barrister, former university lecturer and founder of Alpha Academic Appeals. Julia Heller is a consultant forensic clinical psychologist at Parkside Hospital.?She also appears in court as an expert witness.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？