Professor Sarah Raskin Delivers Talk on Red Flag Laws and Suicide Prevention

Lucy Sheldon ’27

Staff Writer

On Oct. 3, the Faculty Research Committee (FRC), responsible for funding and supporting faculty in their research and creative endeavors, held its first lecture of the fall 2024 semester in the Dangremond Family Commons. At the end of each research project, faculty members who receive funding are invited to deliver presentations on their findings to the Trinity community. Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Charles A. Dana Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience Sarah Raskin, who has been a faculty member at Trinity since 1994, started this series with her presentation titled “Extreme Risk Protection Orders (Red Flag Laws): Their Use By CT Health Care Providers for Suicide Prevention.” 

Having served on the Board of the Brain Injury Alliance of Connecticut as well as the Board of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, Raskin began this research by focusing on people who have suffered traumatic brain injuries. This led her to consider the interaction between brain injuries and intimate partner violence, as well as the intersection between intimate partner violence and gun violence. She stated that typically, gunshot wounds are not survivable, except in extreme cases in which a stray bullet hits someone, so she was motivated to explore preventative measures to decrease the frequency of gun violence in the state of CT. Using this as her investigative scope, Prof. Raskin was then led to research Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) laws and how they can be used to intercept gun violence. 

During Raskin’s process, she also formulated a research advisory board to assist her in her study. The board was comprised of people “that live in the community who have experienced traumatic brain injuries,” whose role was to “help us out with coming up with designing studies” and “ideas for what they think is important for what we should do next,” she said during the panel. Raskin attributed a member of her advisory board as one of her major inspirations for this research’s direction. 

One woman who served on Raskin’s advisory board was the victim of intimate partner violence. In one instance in particular, she was struck over the middle of her head by her ex-partner during a violent altercation. She suffered a mild brain injury as a result. The only follow-up care offered to her was an appointment to get staples removed. Raskin noted that what was absent from this visit to the hospital was a conversation about domestic violence, any resources to help with post-traumatic stress disorder, or a thorough discussion about the symptoms of traumatic brain injuries. This was even after she shared with the hospital physicians that her injury came at the hands of her partner. 

During her research, Raskin found that of her sample of women who screened for possible traumatic brain injuries (TBI), 95% had not been diagnosed or even told of what a TBI was or that it was a possibility. These women had impairments in executive functioning and memory, along with anxiety, depression, and PTSD. The women who she identified as having the highest rates and severity of deficits were women who suffered from strangulation. 

Raskin’s research culminated in a publication entitled “Traumatic Brain  Injury Screening and Neuropsychological Functioning in Women who Experience Intimate Partner Violence” which she produced with the help of Dorothy Anika, Blessing Njoku, Olivia White, and Michelle Mordasiewicz.  

Intrigued with the intersection between intimate partner violence and gun violence, Raskin conducted another study with the help of funding from Trinity College about ways to increase the use and efficacy of Extreme Risk Protective Orders. The role of ERPO laws in decreasing gun violence, either suicide or homicide, is that when a police officer, relative, or medical professional believes you are a risk to yourself or others, they can initiate the ERPO law. If it is on a good-faith belief you do pose a threat, this is brought to a court, where they will determine if an investigation is warranted, and if there is probable cause, the police will seek an ERPO and if a judge warrants it, they will confiscate your firearms for 180 days and prevent an individual from buying a new gun.

Raskin provided some alarming statistics about gun-related suicide rates. Of suicide methods, firearms are reportedly the most lethal. Raskin also asserted suicide deaths by guns remain more frequent among older white men. However, rates of suicide death by guns continue to climb for women and black children, with black men experiencing the biggest increase. After delivering these statistics, Raskin asked: “What do we do about this?”

She maintained that gun prevention laws work. She defended this claim with statistics of gun-related suicides in states with stronger gun laws against states with weaker ones, demonstrating that there were lower rates of gun-related suicides in the former. 

One of the things that came out of Raskin’s research on the efficacy of ERPO laws was data that suggested when medical professionals intervene in situations where someone poses a threat with lethal means (especially by firearms), it is successful. Raskin created a survey and distributed it to local psychology, primary care, and pediatrics departments using hospitals and department chairs as resources to distribute the survey further. 

Some of the data Raskin collected from these surveys was that most of the medical professionals who filled out the survey were unaware of ERPO laws. While some were relatively familiar, only two were very familiar. The responses varied as to whether these medical professionals would feel comfortable discussing lethal means with their patients. Only about half said they discussed it all the time, and 20% said most of the time. And of the healthcare professionals who discussed it, only half of them discussed firearms. When asked how often they encounter someone who would be a good candidate for an ERPO, many reported several times a year, though. This affirmed that medical professionals had the potential to reach and intercept many of the people who could be life-threatening with a firearm.

Ultimately, some of the reasons these medical professionals were not invoking more Extreme Risk Protective Orders were either a lack of awareness about ERPOs, limited time, a concern it could impact trust with their patients, or a fear about getting police involved in their relationship with the patient. After identifying time as one of the primary reasons medical professionals weren’t invoking ERPO laws, Professor Raskin analyzed how this process could be streamlined. Her research culminated in an Op-ed that outlined the systemic structural changes in hospitals and medical institutions that could increase the use of ERPO laws in situations where someone is an extreme risk to themselves or others. Some of these changes included an in-house point person to walk through how to invoke an Extreme Risk Protective Order, in-house training, and automatic flags on electronic medical records, or, ideally, more extensive training held for incoming residents on gun violence prevention.