Slashdot Mirror
Internet Sites Biased Towards Supporting Suicide
Believe It Or Not, I Care About You writes "According to a new study in the British Medical Journal which examined the search results for various suicide-related search terms, the most common results supported or encouraged suicide. Wikipedia was one of the most prevalent sources of information, particularly on suicide methods, although the Wikimedia Foundation itself does not encourage suicide. Other studies have shown that media coverage has an effect on suicide particularly with respect to influencing the method chosen. Interestingly, this study notes that suicide rates actually decreased with increased Web usage in England, perhaps because support is readily available to anyone who wants it."
The desire for suicide stems from desperation, from having no way out, from not being heard or understood by anyone. The "support" of suicide provides those with suicidal tendencies with a way out, and gives them the feeling that they are heard and understood. This then decreases the actual risk of suicide.
Well, gee, if you search for only websites that offer "suicide methods" (as most of the researcher's search terms were constructed), it's not surprising you're going to find exactly that -- a lot of websites that are biased toward providing suicide methods.
The researchers stacked the deck at the onset by carefully defining their search terms to focus exclusively on "suicide methods" (not reasonable other search terms, like suicide crisis, support, help, etc.) The one non-biased search term ("suicide") shows zero pro-suicide websites in the top 10 search results on the 4 search engines the researchers used.
Read my full response at the BMJ:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters?lookup=by_date&days=1#193559
--
Psych Central
psychcentral.com
Demented But Determined.
If you read the study itself, it's weighted almost entirely for people actually searching for ways to do the deed. Of course it mostly returns results instructing people how to do it, that's what they told the search engines to give them! This isn't science, this is stupidity!
From the summary:
the most common results supported or encouraged suicide.From the article, the search terms:
suicide, suicide methods, suicide sure methods, most effective methods of suicide, methods of suicide, ways to commit suicide, how to commit suicide, how to kill yourself, easy suicide methods, best suicide methods, pain-free suicide, and quick suicide.To me that seems to indicate that search engines are working, not that there is more pro-suicide info online than anti-suicide. For some strange reason I doubt most anti-suicide sites will include useful information on "best suicide methods" or "pain-free suicide." The same applies to the majority of the terms used. In fact, 11 of those 12 terms are specific to people looking for ways to commit suicide. Maybe the study should have looked for terms/phrases geared towards whether or not people should commit suicide. I don't know about you but if I am looking to research painless ways to commit suicide (for whatever reason) and I search for "pain-free suicide" and the majority of the results returned are not about that topic but about trying to discourage people from doing it, well the search engine was ineffective and I would be annoyed. I don't have any problem at all with search engines not being easily hijacked by people with a specific agenda of providing me some information I don't want (be it advertising or anti-suicide counseling) instead of the information I clearly do want based upon my search criteria. Maybe if suicide prevention groups don't like this they can do the same as commercial companies and buy some ad space.
I wish people would differentiate suicide more often.
;) time to do some research...
Whenever people talk about suicide, we typically picture some really depressed person in a funk offing themselves.
But what if life really isn't worth living anymore? What if you're slowly losing your mind? Terminally ill? Old and sick? A threat to others?
There are forms of suicide that are not the sudden, "Oh they had so much to live for" kind of trauma you're talking about. I wish that were acknowledged more often instead of this ridiculous "culture of life" crap out there that fails to acknowledge that quality of life is important too.
Personally, I don't see the point of saving up my entire life just to pay part of my medicals bills in my last year or two of life. I'd prefer to save up to enjoy retirement.. preferably early.. and when I start really failing, ending it all on MY terms.
Sure I might feel different then.. but I might not too
Just a quick comment regarding the intertubes usefulness for support. My mum died after her 12 year battle with cancer at the end of last year; I was stuyding externally so I could help take care of her as she was getting weaker.
In all honesty I don't know where I would have been then or now without the Internet. Within a few hours of realising the unthinkable happened I had people literally from as far away as Alaska and South Africa (I live in Singapore) sending their condolences and thoughts, it really was something else.Also I think people tend to think of support in the fairly narrow sense, don't underestimate the pleasent distraction and coping help you can get from tinkering with source code from your favourite FLOSS app or OS, say for example FreeBSD. Really got me through some tough times.
Cheers, ~ Ruben
The researchers performed a bunch of searches on ways to kill yourself, and that's what they found. Looks like a great demonstration of how search engines work. They should stop acting shocked that the search engine actually returned results relevant to their searches, and instead be happy they didn't get a bunch of "free-celebrity-nude-ringtones-game-cheats-mp3.com" bullshit instead.
They should have asked that question of a bunch of recent suicide attempters first.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
A lot of people who seriously consider or attempt suicide are simply going a particularly bad time, and after surviving their brush with death go on to lead productive lives. Saying "just take yourself out of the gene pool" to these people isn't only callous, it's dumb.
That being said, I do believe that people who genuinely want to die and who have carefully worked out their reasons for this desire, after considering and rejecting the alternatives, should be allowed to do so. In particular, if I were dying of something that would inevitably kill me slowly and painfully (or worse, destroy the person I am long before my body dies, like Alzheimer's) then I would very much hope that I could find a sympathetic doctor to hook me up with some, ah, special medications.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Most of the sites referenced by the study seem not necessarily to be "pro" but simply making the information available. While this may seem heinous and "pro" to anyone adamantly against suicide, it is a fallacy of logic to presume those sites are "pro suicide." A parallel of this fallacy would be to believe any site that discusses Hitler would be "pro Nazi". To make information available can very much be a neutral or impartial act, and needs to be differentiated from sites (of which there certainly were also some cited by the study) that said you "should" kill yourself. Those I think we should condemn, but for us to condemn simple availability of information is a very dangerous censorship line to cross.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
So, they found out that:
- search engines work well when searching for suicide methods.
- wikipedia is one of the best sources of information on the internet.
brilliant
Okay, it got me curious. If you go to google and enter pain-free suicide into the product search it provides five sponsired links and they are:
Just because websites provide information explaining how people kill themselves, and what the details of the nasty process are like, doesn't mean those sites "support" suicide, in the sense of recommending, endorsing or encouraging it. In fact, the facts about suicide reveal that it's hard to kill oneself, that it's complicated, likely to fail, painful, embarassing, and just plain hard. Lots of people talking about killing themselves or just thinking about it will not go through with it if they know what will really probably happen, if they get a good look at the process with enough time to think about it, rather than just wash down a bottle of downers with a quart of liquor (which often doesn't work, as some of these websites explain).
Maybe the increased availability of graphic facts about what the person is thinking of doing is part of the reason that fewer people are doing it. Maybe the prevention services aren't entirely effective, but don't want to compete with simple websites that are often more approachable and carry less stigma from private viewing than asking another person for help, or admitting that one is seriously considering that desperate measure.
The fear-driven conclusion that sharing information about a practice is equivalent to encouraging it, when that info includes the discouraging facts about it, has got to go away. It's an old coping mechanism for "dangerous" information that relies on centralized authorities, and the control of the info supply, rather than growing the ability of people to think about whatever info we come across, and protect ourselves from what we filter as "bad". This is the Info Age. We've got a lot of growing up to do. Because the info flood is only going to gush more strongly, and only learning to think for ourselves can protect us.
--
make install -not war
On the other hand, if they know that every attempted suicide will be 100% successful (with or without government's assistance) then maybe - just maybe - they will consider other, less painful ways to ask for help? Like, maybe, filling a Web form?
I have schizoaffective disorder. It's just like being manic depressive and schizophrenic at the same time. One of the symptoms is severe depression: I have attempted suicide twice. There were several years where I was almost continuously suicidal. It was quite a grim existence.
I also know now that depression is actually a delusional state; feeling that life is not worth living is no more real than regarding oneself as the Emperor of France. It can almost always be effectively treated, and often cured completely.
I have found many times that the antidepressants I take for it (imipramine these days) have the effect of changing the behaviour of other people, making them friendlier towards me. Strangers are more likely to strike up conversations with me when I'm medicated.
I'm not kidding! I'm absolutely serious.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns arent lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.
(Dorothy Parker)
Maybe the moron that modded this as "Flamebait" should consider the *horrible* emotional suffering that I, and other suicide survivors, experience. This has been the most painful experience in my life -- the suffering is beyond description. Ever heard of sympathy? You'll be wanting it if ever one of your loved ones dies before their time.
jdb2
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Society has always been this way. The fact that your anonymous on the net makes it worst.
People always tear others down to make themselves feel better. So to survive in society you either:
a)Do whatever you can to fit in, and be successfully according to the quirks of society.
b)Do what ever makes you happy and not give a rats ass about what others think.
c)flip out and/or lash out.
There are some people who can handle it and then there are those who proclaim life is horrible when they drop and break their ipod. Unless society itself changes nothing will change and considering society has always been this way... don't ever expect change.
You can't understand because you are not them. I can't understand why anyone would take pleasure in hurting people or animals without cause. I can't understand because i'm not wired that way. The same goes for you. You're actually better if what you say is true since the end result for you is satisfaction and happiness.
So I say: Good for you!Eenjoy your life, don't apologize for your good joss and pity those who can't figure out their own way and are miserable. Make it a challenge to not make things worse for them and try to see the good in them since that is your strength.
Good luck on your journey.
The Wikipedia article on Suicide seems to be written in that completely dispassionate, apparently unbiased way that all the better Wikipedia articles are. I suppose they neither encourage nor discourage suicide.
It thus reflects the rest of the Internet. If you want to join a cult, there's plenty of information out there -- the Church of Scientology has certainly staked out its own turf. If you want to have all kinds of crazy, kinky sex, there's information on where to buy Gor books, on how to safely suffocate someone almost until they pass out, or how, exactly, to apply a whip or crop for maximum pain but minimum actual injury...
And if you want to commit suicide, you can find out where to get a gun, and how to load it. Or how to hang yourself -- how to set up the drop to be quick and hard enough to snap your neck before you feel any pain.
And if you want to get out of depression, it'll show you all kinds of prescription pills, psychiatrists, meditation, or simply support groups to help you through it.
In other words, the Internet itself is neutral -- due to the sheer amount of diversity out there, what the Internet is to you is exactly what you choose for it to be.
Is that a good thing? Would it be better if Wikipedia actively discouraged suicide?
Oh, one more thing: What I've found to be effective is simply talking to the person. It doesn't matter what you say, or even too much how you say it. It matters more that you are there -- human contact helps.
A real example: Someone told me of her plans to commit suicide. I was sick of trying to help her with her almost daily threatening to do so. So instead, I asked her how she was planning to do it. And I criticized her for her technique, and brainstormed a bit with her on more effective ways of killing herself -- quickly, and without mistakes, so she wouldn't wake up in the hospital.
And after a few minutes of this, she broke out laughing at the absurdity of the situation.
Remember, kids -- anyone who really wants to end their life can do it, quickly, easily, painlessly -- or painfully, if they like. The fact that they are still alive and still talking to you means they aren't going to go through with it.
I can only wonder if the Wikipedia article could have anything like that effect... Or if it's just the opposite, if it's too impersonal.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
WTF? +5, insightful... here on nerd central? Of course the websites out there must be biased.
What's wrong with you people? Would you listen to a moron painting all the cancers of the world with a single size 200 paintbrush and asking all cancer victims to not pass off their dna? Then why single out the depressions? Depression is not anymore a disease than cancer is... it is a class of diseases. And while it may kill you, it certainly does not kill your drive to pass off your dna. What the parent is saying is just ugly and elitist.
Quoting from the American Psychiatric Association's response to Szasz,
There is much that is 'physical' in mental disorders and much 'mental' in 'physical' disorders.What the parent has is just a false dichotomy.
While we might understand very little about the brain and depressions, our knowledge is nowhere as shallow as the parent implies.
Almost all forms of depression now have a provably strong physical component. Some forms of depression are more disabling than others. Some people are genetically predisposed to some. Some are treatable. Some depressions are like cancers and some are like untreated common colds. It is not for fun or glorification that some mental problems are considered medical disorders.
The +5 insightful is due to the link to TED I suppose.
Putting yourself in the center of the universe and not understanding why other people may have different feelings is not insightful in my opinion.
There's an interesting experiment described on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness in which dogs are put in an unpleasant situation that they can not escape from. Only 30% of the dogs where not effected in such a way that they thought the situation could not be escaped in the future. Translated to humans I think this means that the majority of people would become depressed if they were in a hopeless situation without a job, family or friends for extended periods of time. Not just an unfortunate few. I think most people are just lucky that they are fixed in this social framwork of work an relationships that is so important for their wellbeing. They would fall apart when it drops away. Then only the other part of 30% may actually see new opportunities.
I think quite a lot of people who've never used the internet could still see the humour in such things as the Darwin Awards. Outside of situations that were obviously highly dangerous, it is kind of twisted to laugh. I'd say I'm pretty desensetised to the horrors of death, and end up kind of treating the subject more lightly than most (though inwardly still being scared that I might lose another loved one to death, I was devastated when my dad died, and it's affected my life quite a lot in that I've pretty much lost most of my respect for authority). I'm not sure how much of that would be towards the internet itself, but a good pun is probably always going to elicit a bit of a smile, whether it's in bad taste or not. I was thinking that there are some things such as paedophilia that I'd just find incredibly sick to joke about, though then I remembered a coupla months ago, I made a kind of joke to do with the meaning of the original latin, with the supposed situation that someone who didn't know the modern meaning could write "paedophile" on a job application for a job working with children - paedophile of course literally meaning "one who loves children", though these days that has come to take on a mostly sexual connotation. I probably shouldn't have made that joke, it shows I joke about even one of the things that out of all human practices, I find most disturbing..
which is totally what she said