The Western Psych lawsuit: A failure to act
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, May 1, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
The newly amended lawsuit filed by a UPMC Western Psychiatric Institute & Clinic receptionist wounded in John Shick's March 2012 shooting rampage of course casts the best possible light on her case. But it nonetheless suggests serious and disturbing flaws in the mental-health system.
The University of Pittsburgh, UPMC, University of Pittsburgh Physicians, re:solve Crisis Network and Mr. Shick's mother are now defendants along with the estate of Mr. Shick, who was killed by Pitt police. The lawsuit thus begs the question of how and why the mental-health system left him free to kill a 25-year-old therapist and wound five after he had:
• Been committed involuntarily five times in New York and Oregon — twice after attacks on police and airport security — and diagnosed as schizophrenic.
• Been expelled and banned from Duquesne University's campus for harassing female students as a graduate student in 2011.
• Been diagnosed in late November 2011 as a schizophrenic not taking his medication — and refused treatment.
• Brought a baseball bat to medical facilities, then declined a mobile crisis team's help — twice.
All this, plus two doctors' puzzling failure to follow through on filing involuntary commitment papers, suggests a systemic failure to protect the public — and Shick himself — from the dangers his mental illness posed. And unless the systemic flaws exposed are rectified, it's only a matter of time until another, similar tragedy occurs.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Liquor privatization: Now’s the time
- Sunday pops
- Saturday essay: Resurrection
- Easter 2014: Churches’ vital role
- All taken seriously
- Keystone caper: Pipeline politics