GU must reform medical leave policy to better support students

With the number of Hoyas opting to take medical leaves of absence on the rise this year, several students have voiced concerns about the way in which the university handles such cases.

Students who have taken or considered medical leaves of absence have claimed to have encountered unexpected obstacles complicating their returns to campus. These students allege that university administrators and healthcare professionals tasked with advising them on potential time off misrepresented the logistical and bureaucratic headaches that can accompany returning to campus.

This editorial board has reviewed the university’s medical leave policy and, though it is well-intentioned, finds it flawed in practice and in need of reform.

Numerous complications can arise for students during the process of returning from a medical leave of absence that are ultimately detrimental to the student involved. For example, if a student is discharged for medical reasons during the fall semester, that student must typically wait six months before Counseling and Psychiatric Services can reevaluate them and decide whether or not they are fit to return to campus. In practice, this means that planning to take a semester-long leave of absence can in fact result in a student missing an entire academic year—a much more substantial period of time that can result in far greater disruption to a student’s academic progress. What’s more, if a student is not formally cleared to return to campus prior to the deadline for pre-registration, they are unable to pre-register for classes through normal means. This fact alone can seriously impede their ability to smoothly transition back into the routine of college life.

Complicating matters even further is the fact that students who do manage to return from a medical leave receive little to no follow up from the university. They are not allowed to receive treatment from CAPS, despite the fact that regular therapy is often an integral part of students’ long-term treatment plans. Instead, they are often forced to seek professional care off-campus—an inhibitive logistical and financial burden for some students.

If a student makes the often difficult decision to take a medical leave of absence from school, university administrators have an obligation to act as the student’s primary support rather than as a roadblock to the student’s reintegration to campus. If the true purpose of offering medical leaves of absence is to benefit students—rather than simply to reduce the university’s liability—the system must be restructured to place students first and foremost.

If promoting and protecting a student’s health is genuinely the primary concern of the university when recommending that a student spend time away from Georgetown, as it should be, the procedure for returning to campus should never discourage a student from opting to do so.

In light of students’ legitimate concerns, the university should revisit its policies regarding recommending leaves of absence to students and remove the bureaucratic obstacles that confront students before they are permitted to reintegrate into campus life. In order to ensure that these reforms are both efficient and student-centric, the university should also create a formal, standardized safety net to follow through with students who return from medical leave.

When it comes to student health, cura personalis must follow Hoyas from their exit through Georgetown’s front gates until they complete their journey on campus.