Under WashU’s current policy, medical amnesty is not necessarily extended to student groups or individuals that have repeatedly been seen by emergency services. Though the stated purpose of the policy is student safety and well-being, this university policy actually elevates risk for students in many scenarios, making campus a more dangerous space.

According to WashU’s Medical Amnesty & Active Bystander Protocol, “if an individual or student group/chapter has repeatedly been seen by emergency services, it is possible that medical amnesty may not be extended in that situation. In order to provide the best support to an individual or student group/chapter, additional resources, sanctions and/or referrals may be given.”

As members of the WashU community, we mostly talk about medical amnesty in regards to student groups and events that they host. I need not explain why it might be dangerous for a club or Greek life organization to know that they risk being disbanded by calling for help if they have used medical amnesty in the past.

Potentially even more dangerous is this policy as it applies to individuals. 44% of undergraduate students in the United States report partaking in high-risk drinking. High-risk drinking is one symptom of alcohol use disorder. Furthermore, 14% of full-time college students between the ages of 18 and 22 suffer from alcohol use disorder.

A student engaging in high-risk drinking or suffering from alcohol use disorder is more likely to require emergency medical services as a result of alcohol overconsumption. Unfortunately, they and their close friends may hesitate to call Emergency Services if they know that the student is no longer protected under medical amnesty and could therefore face suspension or even expulsion. Regardless of their decision, this moment of hesitation could ultimately lead to serious injury or death due to a lack of medical intervention.

Disciplinary action, the right of the university protected by WashU’s current policy, will not provide any help or perceived higher stakes to students suffering from alcohol use disorder, a chronic condition without regard for punitive consequences.

This is something that modern medicine understands. Medical attitudes toward substance abuse disorder have shifted significantly in recent years, moving away from disciplinary approaches and toward a model that views it as a chronic health condition requiring medical intervention. According to Yale Medicine, alcohol use disorder is a “chronic brain disease characterized by continued alcohol use despite harmful consequences,” and not a moral failing or character flaw. Punitive approaches often fail to address the root causes of substance misuse, instead reinforcing stigma and discouraging individuals from seeking help. Given WashU’s reputation as a leading institution in medical education and research, it should align its policies with this modern understanding of substance abuse disorder.

By extending unconditional medical amnesty to individuals and groups, WashU would signal its commitment to addressing substance misuse as a public health issue, fostering a culture of empathy and safety, rather than fear of disciplinary action. The American Medical Association advocates for reducing punitive responses to substance use, emphasizing that such responses create barriers to care. Highly respected research institutions like WashU are uniquely positioned to lead by example in implementing supportive measures that encourage students to seek emergency assistance without hesitation. By revising its medical amnesty policy, WashU would not only protect student safety, but also reinforce its role as a premier medical institution in applying progressive, health-focused approaches to campus policies.

Among college students, there are an estimated 468 deaths annually from unintentional, alcohol-related injuries. WashU’s peer universities mitigate these issues by extending medical amnesty to all undergraduates and organizations. Dartmouth College’s Good Samaritan Policy has no exceptions for student groups who have repeatedly requested medical help. Their policy simply states, “Students and/or organizations that seek assistance from DOSS and/or emergency services and the individual(s) assisted will not be subject to College disciplinary action with respect to violation of the Alcohol Policy and/or the use of other drugs.” They do add, “Failure to complete [the] recommended follow-up will normally result in disciplinary action. Likewise, organizations involved in an incident must agree to take [the] recommended steps to address concerns.”

This may, at first glance, seem similar to WashU’s policy. However, it is very possible that a student group/chapter agrees to take recommended steps and takes action to follow them, and yet a medical emergency still occurs. In this situation, the student group/chapter would be protected at Dartmouth College, but not at WashU. Even Stanford University, which has a similar policy to WashU regarding student groups, does not risk waiving medical amnesty for individuals with repeated incidents.

I propose a combination of Dartmouth’s and Stanford’s policies: that Washington University in St. Louis extend medical amnesty to all individuals and student groups/chapters, including those that have been repeatedly seen by emergency services, by removing the aforementioned clause from its policy. WashU would also do well to take advantage of their existing mandatory wellness measures imploring individuals and groups to attend a follow-up and do their best to enact reasonable changes to bolster student safety. This alteration of the medical amnesty and active bystander protocol is a matter of student safety that will not only make students feel safer on campus, but will also foster a caring relationship between students and administration, contributing to a culture of empathy on WashU’s campus.

To be clear, I understand the intentions of the original language — in theory, if a fraternity was repeatedly hosting objectively dangerous, on-campus events that frequently resulted in medical emergencies, the school would like to reserve the right to put an end to those events. Similar arguments have been made to combat medical amnesty policies as a whole, contending that they will result in increased emergency transport as a result of drugs and alcohol since students have what is essentially a “get out of jail free card.” This was ultimately disproved, and the institution of medical amnesty policies actually decreased the use of emergency transport, likely as a result of the educational efforts encompassed by the protocol.

According to a study published in the Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice regarding bystander behavior among college students, “50% of respondents reported that getting their friend in trouble with the police for calling 911 on their behalf was a serious concern, potentially preventing them from intervening.” If these students had reassurance that neither they, nor the student they are considering calling assistance for, were in disciplinary danger, their decision not to intervene in a dangerous situation could be altered.

By implementing my suggested changes, the school would still be allowed to take action against student groups who are not doing their best to follow reasonable and agreed-upon safety precautions. I would like to make clear that medical amnesty, at WashU and elsewhere, only protects individuals and student groups from disciplinary action — not from mandatory wellness measures, like health education and follow-up meetings. I enthusiastically encourage WashU to take advantage of existing wellness measures, especially for those individuals exhibiting signs of alcohol use disorder.

WashU has a moral and medical responsibility to expand the existing medical amnesty policy to include student groups/chapters and individuals that have used medical amnesty in the past. We could have a policy that focuses on treatment, education, and follow-up rather than punishment — a policy that is not just more compassionate but more effective.