Slashdot Mirror


Predictors of Suicidal Behavior Found In Blood

ananyo writes "Researchers may have found a way to potentially predict suicidal behaviour by analyzing someone's blood. Using blood samples taken by the coroner from nine men who had committed suicide, they found six molecular signs, or biomarkers, that they say can identify people at risk of committing suicide. To check whether these biomarkers could predict hospitalizations related to suicide or suicide attempts, the researchers analysed gene-expression data from 42 men with bipolar disorder and 46 men with schizophrenia. When the biomarkers were combined with clinical measures of mood and mental state, the accuracy with which researchers could predict hospitalizations was more than 80% (abstract)."

209 comments

  1. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Can we get these people on the organ donation list?

    1. Re:Hmmm... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Hilarious. But more realistically, let's find out what drug they're being given that's killing them, and develop a counter-agent.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    2. Re:Hmmm... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      They were on a wide range of drugs, I'm afraid; it's in the supplementary notes. The group of people they were studying (bipolar disorder patients) are pretty high-risk, medication or no.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:Hmmm... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Well, I was pointing to something a little more sinister, but yeah, you could read my comments that way, sure. ;-)

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    4. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I get some in synthetic form?
      I know a few people who need this added to their morning coffee.

  2. Let's Test Everyone... by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...and mandate drugs to counteract whatever ails them.

    Like in Larry Niven's Known Space series; registered schizophrenics were required to be medicated or face liquidation in the organ banks.

    Or as in Brave New World, or THX-1138. Those worked out well.

    1. Re:Let's Test Everyone... by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Maybe that step is unnecessary, as the blood markers derive from the drugs that have already been prescribed to those likely depressed people.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  3. STAY OFF MY LAWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't want to live in a world that will prevent me from committing suicide.

    1. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If anything this needs to be modded "Funny".

    2. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are only a couple countries where suicide is legal.

      My favorite was when attempted suicide in Great Britain carried the death penalty. "Do it right, or we'll finish the job."

    3. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      I'll bet you get invited to all of the Christmas parties.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      If you are a productive citizen, then you are needed to pay taxes. You aren't allowed to take that away, it's selfish. If you are a net consumer of taxes, then you are needed to keep voting for more money for your kind. Either way, you're sticking around.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your position is non sequitur. You say you're all for letting people commit suicide, but then go on to insult them, call them illogical, and say that suicide is not okay. I suspect that you simply have a misguided sense of superiority, and are trying to demonstrate it.

    6. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put me on autopilot and send me to oblivion.

    7. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      There are only a couple countries where suicide is legal.

      My favorite was when attempted suicide in Great Britain carried the death penalty. "Do it right, or we'll finish the job."

      Didn't it also result in forfeiture of your estate there, or desecration of your body, or trampling your flower garden or something like that, too?

      I thought I was kind of kidding, but apparently not:

      Even in modern times, legal penalties for committing suicide have not been uncommon. By 1879, English law had begun to distinguish between suicide and homicide, though suicide still resulted in forfeiture of estate. Also, the deceased were permitted daylight burial in 1882.

      So maybe not the flower garden part, but you had to be buried at night? Cute.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    8. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      When you have a close relative (or yourself) dying of incurable. unusually painful bone cancer, you may shift your views a tetch.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    9. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Maybe their suffering should be put to an end before it becomes really painful and unmanageable, ... or before the medical cost become prohibitive. I mean, there is no point to treat cancer of a +70 years old person... (S)He had a good life, time to go. ps: I do have a grand-parent in this case.

    10. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Since when has selfishness becomes a bad thing ?

    11. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

      The Fifth Trumpet
      â¦5And they were not permitted to kill anyone, but to torment for five months; and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings a man. 6And in those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, and death flees from them.
      Revelation 9

      (I'm not particularly Christian, but find this interesting in the light of current questions of medical ethics)

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    12. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      It was a bit more than just be buried at night:

      If proven, they were denied a Christian burial - and instead carried to a crossroads in the dead of night and dumped in a pit, a wooden stake hammered through the body pinning it in place. There were no clergy or mourners, and no prayers were offered.

      ...at least at first, anyway! You can imagine this would be very scarring to the family and very bad in a religious perspective; suicide effectively gets you excommunicated.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    13. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      It's a very ambiguous situation. Older people, it would appear, are made of sterner stuff than I. They want to live, despite the pain, even at that age. I didn't understand why my father wanted to live into his 80s, his suffering was so great in that last decade. Yet, he resisted dying to the last day.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    14. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      I tried to borrow a book on suicide from my local library, but they wouldn't lend it out as all the other copies never got returned.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    15. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on modders! Don't you see the black humour irony of GP?

      (And yes, even on deadly serious topics such as this, a little humour actually helps serious discussion along.)

      ((Oh, and as added irony, the AC human check as I post this comment is "depress".))

    16. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      There really is nothing logical about suicide.

      Nor is there anything illogical about it. You can only talk about whether something is logical or illogical with respect to a goal. You're assuming the goal is survival. You can argue that there is a survival instinct, but that's something you have in common with a paramecium.

    17. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      [T]hey were . . . carried to a crossroads in the dead of night and dumped in a pit, a wooden stake hammered through the body pinning it in place. .

      Well then. Desecration: check. Wow. It's like the British government was Al Capone as played by Robert DeNiro.

      At least maybe I was still kidding about the flowers . . .

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    18. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It isn't worth treating the cancer of a 70 y.o. so that they may live to 80 or more? Sorry, but I'm not in favor of putting grannie on an ice flow. And in all fairness to the Hudson's Bay Inuit, they only did that in times of severe crisis, when the survival of the entire group was at risk. That hardly describes our current society.

    19. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny doesn't grant Karma, Interesting does.

      Therefore its a Mod choice to give someone something for making them laugh.

    20. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      That was his choice. If I want a different choice for myself, the government shouldn't interfere.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    21. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you aren't dead, there is a potential for something to change

      There's a chance of of my discovering that I have super-powers that makes me immortal. Some people would rather opt out of a dragged out painful disease that will result in them being on a 24/7 morphine drip for the next few decades. Except giving them too much morphine can be lethal, so a few hours every day, they come to their senses and scream out in agony until their next dosage.

      Not everyone is in this situation, but there are some.

      When your current state of health is akin to being tortured and told you're going to live for many many years, you would also pray for a way out. You "pussy".

    22. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What if you choice was the product of a temporary chemical change?

      You don't make as many decisions as you think you do. None of us do.

      What if you suicide impacts other people?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It isn't worth treating the cancer of a 70 y.o. so that they may live to 80 or more? Sorry, but I'm not in favor of putting grannie on an ice flow. And in all fairness to the Hudson's Bay Inuit, they only did that in times of severe crisis, when the survival of the entire group was at risk. That hardly describes our current society.

      Hey now! we have a sever food shortage. If it's 3 am I have to drive 2 blocks to get some pre-made food. I mean, NO one delivers at that time. Barbaric.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    24. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Always.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    25. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you choice was the product of a temporary chemical change?

      What do you mean? Like if someone decided they did not want to live anymore, some other people found out, forced the first to take anti-depressant drugs, and now that person no longer has such thoughts? I don't know, but ultimately I would probably go with however the person feels now, regardless of the fact that it is the product of a temporary chemical change caused by the anti-depressant drugs.

      What if you suicide impacts other people?

      Depends how. If people are dependent on you, I would consider it wrong. If all it does is make them sad/angry/whatever, then that's their problem. No one ever asked to be born.

    26. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      ...a wooden stake hammered through the body pinning it in place...

      suicide effectively gets you mistaken for Dracula

      I never thought I'd stoop to this, but.. There, fixed that for you!

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    27. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Ignorance, arrogance and pig-headedness. These attributes certainly seem to be your trademark, judging by your posting history.

      Don't let your lack of understanding prevent you from laying about you with your Great Stick of Judgement. You're well on your way to congress, mate.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    28. Re: STAY OFF MY LAWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mental status notwithstanding, isn't that the true test of free will in a society?

      Why yes! I am serious!

    29. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by oreiasecaman · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on modders! Don't you see the black humour irony of GP?

      (statement)

      ((another statement))

      Are you into Lisp?

      --
      This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
    30. Re:STAY OFF MY LAWN by tlambert · · Score: 1

      You already do, but you're too ignorant to realize it. There are only a couple countries where suicide is legal.

      I believe you are confusing "suicide" with "assisted suicide"...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide

      "Assisted-suicide is legal in several jurisdictions, including Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland and four American states (Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana)."

      Suicide itself, as an individual act is legal in most Western countries, including Australia, Canada, the United States, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, South Africa, England and Wales, and Scotland:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation

      One of the impetus for allowing assisted suicide in Oregon's "Death With Dignity Act" was to permit a cryonicist with an untreatable brain cancer to check out without the ordinarily requisite autopsy that normally comes with any suicide, which would have destroyed his chances at being successfully frozen. He didn't want to continue to hang out while the cancer at his brain, resulting in so-called "identity death" or "personality death".

  4. Combined mood and mental state by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    And how accurate were the "clinical measures of mood and mental state" by themselves?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Combined mood and mental state by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      That's sort of the key. It's hard to say. If you successfully intervene, then the person doesn't commit suicide. If you don't they might. Most of the time, you can rank sucidality. Not all of the time, just like most things.

      I don't think that this is going to lead to a 'suicide test' - it's rather early in the game for that. It will likely lead to more grant money in the short term and perhaps a better understanding of mood disorders in the long term. It's interesting that they focused on bipolar patients. The results may well not be generalizable to 'normal' depression, again, way too early to say. Bipolar patients (especially males) do have a higher lethality rate than so called unipolar ('normal') depressives. Is the the same mechanism writ large or something else?

      The Holy Grail of Molecular Psychology is to reduce human behavior into a determinant system that can be manipulated. It will certainly help lots of people but of course opens up some interesting containers of slimy invertebrates (ie, politicians).

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Combined mood and mental state by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It will certainly help lots of people but of course opens up some interesting containers of slimy invertebrates (ie, politicians).

      They can always be euthanized.

    3. Re:Combined mood and mental state by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      FTFA:

      When the biomarkers were combined with clinical measures of mood and mental state, the accuracy with which researchers could predict hospitalizations jumped from 65% to more than 80%.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
  5. Signs of heavy drinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would be my guess, especially if they indicate a switch from expensive Scotch to cheap wine during the past year, indicating a decline in financial fortunes (following Sherlock Holmes).

  6. Vampires in danger? by RedHackTea · · Score: 1

    So if a Vampire were to suck their blood, would it too want to commit suicide? Or are we vampires safe?

    --
    The G
    1. Re:Vampires in danger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Great, now "Suicidal Vampires" will be the next new series on Bravo.

    2. Re:Vampires in danger? by operagost · · Score: 1

      We've already done the sparkly vampire thing, so I guess the suicidal vampires will have a lot of lens flare. Call in J.J. Abrams.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  7. Suicidal induction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are we close to see suicidal induction happening? Just shoot your mother-in-law with one of these Suici-Darts and lend some ropes around. You will inherit her house within minutes!

  8. Have we disprove free will yet? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    We tend to find find these predictors however they mean a statically increase of something not necessary that action will occur.
    There are people with all sorts of mental issues that are living productive and legal lives, because while their instincts may be to do something anti-social, we were taught to not do such, and we are well trained not to do that.

    Suicide may have predictors for it, but it doesn't mean that the person will be Suicidal, even during tough times, however there will be an instinct, that they might need to fight, and work with.
    Knowing this could help to be preemptive. But it isn't a death sentence.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Have we disprove free will yet? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Yep, its like genetics and intelligence, while no doubt they are correlated, someone who has the best genes in the world but does nothing but sleep, eat Cheetos and watch MTV is going to be less smart than the guy with terrible genetics who wants to better himself.

      Unfortunately, the more we find out about this type of stuff the less personal responsibility people seem to have.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Have we disprove free will yet? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Well, let's face it: people don't know what's good for them. It's better if we let the smart people run society. They can make better decisions for us than we can make for ourselves. This is known as Coercive Paternalism and it is the hottest new movement since Progressivism. The closed-minded need not apply, CP is only available to those who enjoy having their cherished beliefs challenged. From page 1: "The truth is that we don't reason very well, and in many cases there is no justification for leaving us to struggle with our own inabilities and to suffer the consequences." Since the government is not tempted by the rewards of your poor decision-making, it can dispassionately make better decisions for you. Let's face it: "choice" is such a sacred cow, especially to a certain that kind of person who practices out-of-fashion politics.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Have we disprove free will yet? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      However those stupid people who make bad decisions can get very violent, making it hard to implement in real life.

      As well how do you determine who is fit to make the decisions or not. Also it falls under the same flaw that Soviet Style communism has. Progress needs mistakes screw ups, and bad decisions and people who do not follow the same drummer.

      The PC revolution, all the business owners say these Personal Computers are not powerful enough to be useful so they said that they didn't want to make them. So it took some guys to decide to ignore that idea and go on their own.

      Our system is sloppy, but it works because of its sloppiness. If you put too much of a tight control, a little mistake will just be huge. If you have loose controls a little mistake is a little mistake.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Have we disprove free will yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the more we find out about this type of stuff the less personal responsibility people seem to have.

      "A guy did a study. A guy! In a labcoat! Being unable to interpret the results whatsoever due to my complete lack of scientific background, I'm going to treat it as absolute truth, because SCIENCE!"

      It's Religion 2.0: Psuedosciencianity.

      "Genes did it!" is the new, "God did it!", only slightly more annoying, because it usually comes out of the mouths of people who insist they're somehow more intelligent than the god-botherers.

      Same shit. Different noun.

    5. Re:Have we disprove free will yet? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I really enjoy learning about the latest in radical left-ish politics from you. You could do well at Fox News to find new bogeymen for them.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Have we disprove free will yet? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Yep, its like genetics and intelligence, while no doubt they are correlated, someone who has the best genes in the world but does nothing but sleep, eat Cheetos and watch MTV is going to be less smart ...

      Or maybe he's very smart, and just doesn't give a damn what you think.

    7. Re:Have we disprove free will yet? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      NO, he would still be more smart. Just not as knowledgeable and probably lack critical thinking skills.

      That said, spending you life enjoying something isn't dumb.

      "..less personal responsibility people seem to have."
      over 90% of things you 'think about' or 'decide on' where determine in your brain before you started thinking about it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Have we disprove free will yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not giving a damn what others think is just self respect - not necessarily intelligent or stupid, just self accepting.

      But the point of the GP is relevant - intelligence is meaningless if it does not result in any sort of material benefit to the either the holder or others.

      An intelligent person who spends all their time sleeping and eating Doritos is no more useful or valuable than an idiot who spends all their time sleeping and eating Doritos. Either way, its just another person sleeping and eating Doritos. What does it matter whether they are intelligent or not?

  9. I disagree by schneidafunk · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have a family member whom has mental health issues and she was suicidal for a good year in her early 20s, until she got on the right medication. Now she lives a productive life and is happy. Some mental issues can be solved with medication!

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:I disagree by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a shame the proper use of who vs whom can't.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:I disagree by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Coffee. Splat. Monitor.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    3. Re:I disagree by schneidafunk · · Score: 1
      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    4. Re:I disagree by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I was on antidepressants when I was depressed as a teenager and they helped. I think antidepressants shouldn't have the negative connotation that they do have. Big pharma pushing them for everything is despicable, but they have their uses. I'm glad I didn't commit suicide, I think the vast majority of people who do commit suicide have no good reason to, and should be stopped.

      That said, I agree with GP. The government should have no say in whether or not I can end my life, be it euthanasia or depression, if I'm somehow being logical about it. I can't blame family members and/or friends from stopping people from killing themselves, but it's still a right.

    5. Re:I disagree by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Send me the bill. That's totally my fault.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    6. Re:I disagree by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

      I agree it shouldn't be illegal in certain situations, such as incurable painful diseases. However, in some cases the person is not in a logical mind-frame and should be forcibly hospitalized instead of giving them a gun.

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    7. Re:I disagree by ebno-10db · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who vs. whom, what are you, British? While you're at it, why not complain using "you" instead of having the separate subject and object forms, thou and thee. Sorry, but subject/object forms in English have been dying for around 1000 years. It ain't German anymore. It's become an analytic rather than a synthetic language.

      P.S. Couldn't help myself. Nothing more fun than outdoing the pedantry of someone else.

      P.P.S. Next time let's discuss the singular "they", and how it was absurd to try and impose Latin rules on English.

    8. Re:I disagree by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Easy: Never use whom.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:I disagree by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Funny

      To whom are you addressing that remark?

    10. Re:I disagree by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't say that if you understood English. From our good friends, Mssrs. Merriam & Webster:

      Suicidal: marked by an impulse to commit suicide.

    11. Re:I disagree by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps electroshock therapy isn't totally obsolete...

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    12. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For every mental problem that is solved by medication, there are 1000 cases where medication isn't justified, but is prescribed anyway.

      There's a reason why the past decade has seen an onslaught of commercials hawking anti-depressants and similar medication: because it's an absolute cash cow.

    13. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have obviously never had suicidal thoughts before.

      I can maybe put in terms that you can understand though.
      Have you ever fantasized about a delicious cake and imagined putting that cake in your mouth and how sweet it would taste?
      Maybe you'll be sitting at your desk working on something and suddenly thoughts of cake will pop into your mind and you'll have the urge to go find something to eat?
      You're kind of occupied and these annoying thoughts of food keep popping into your mind!

      Suicidal thoughts are kind of like that. You'll fantasize about what it would be like to go through with it.
      You'll randomly have the urge to do harm to yourself even if you're preoccupied with something else and have no intention of harming yourself.
      You'll be reading a book and suddenly have an urge to take a knife and stab it into your throat. You'll know this isn't rational.
      You will even know that this is not how you would execute the task if you actually put your mind to it. But you just can't help being hungry for it.

      That's what it can be like. I imagine a lot of people may end up eventually killing themselves simply because such thoughts wear them down and the lure of nothingness offers an escape.

      Disclaimer: I do not suffer from such things and am not in need of help. Please do not be alarmed.

    14. Re:I disagree by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Guns are actually incredibly simply to operate. And a simple single shot 12 gauge shotgun with a short barrel will only set you back maybe $150. Pop in shell, close barrel, pull hammer, squeeze trigger.... *BLAM*

      And why are calling women stupid? My wife is actually a damn good shot. And quite mechanically inclined.

      And not all suicidal people that haven't brought themselves to do it yet are "putting on a show". A lot of them genuinely want to die but are afraid of the pain involved in death and it takes a while to build the courage.

    15. Re:I disagree by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

      You have to realize that suicidal for woman is more of a call for help. Women tend to use methods that permit escape or discovery before death. Suicidal for men is more time to go, where's my gun?

      Statistically woman attempt suicide more often than men. But men die at a much higher rate.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    16. Re:I disagree by Prune · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain to me why "try and" seems to have become so popular? It makes no logical sense as a replacement for "try to", and appears to be favored over the latter for purely euphonic reasons.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    17. Re:I disagree by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imagine having to make a rational decision as to the benefits and costs of continued existence, Most people, aside from the very aged and the very depressed would value continued existence quite highly. Now imagine that you were suffering from a mental condition that exaggerated the costs, and downplayed the benefits, such that every day you took time out of your life to seriously contemplate this otherwise laughable dilemma. What if the only thing preventing the suicide was logistical? What if you worried about how hard it would for someone to find your body and clean up the blood and brains? Is that sort of concern really a sign of a healthy mind?

      "My life is worthless, but I don't want to be a bother?"

    18. Re:I disagree by niado · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps electroshock therapy isn't totally obsolete...

      As funny as that is, I have a family member who was treated with EST last year (2012). I was flabbergasted at the time, but evidently it is still used in some cases. The same family member was also treated with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation this year (2013). This was also surprising to me, as I was under the assumption that magnetic therapies were homeopathic.

    19. Re:I disagree by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Idioms don't have to make sense when taken literally.

    20. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only do they not have to make sense when taken literally, they have to NOT make sense when taken literally.
      OK, since this is the pedantic thread, they can make sense, but have to mean something different than the literal meaning.
      Otherwise they would just be expressions, not idiomatic expressions.

    21. Re:I disagree by cellocgw · · Score: 2

      Can someone explain to me why "try and" seems to have become so popular? It makes no logical sense as a replacement for "try to", and appears to be favored over the latter for purely euphonic reasons.

      OTOH, if your logic tree isn't getting the results you expected, delete an OR and....

      try AND

      . //rimshot

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    22. Re:I disagree by geekoid · · Score: 2

      The Magnetic Therapies used as actual treatments are extremely powerful, and specifically target devices.
      However, the data is still weak, and Neuropsychopharmacology did a great break down on the FDA post hoc reasoning.

      The shit you where on your wrist or in your shoe have no effect.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, it's not "try and" it's " try n' "

      MUR'CA!

    24. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't our defibrillators a branch of electroshock therapy? ;)

    25. Re:I disagree by geekoid · · Score: 1

      no.
      Most people who commit suicide do it fairly suddenly.
      Also, the higher the bar, the fewer suicide. And the bar doesn't need to be moved that high.

      This could be a great breakthrough. If you can tell ahead of time you are the statistically likely to decide to kill your self one day, you can take preventative measure.

      Is the chemical a temporarily generate chemical? Does it change?

      Read up on people who where saved from suicide, or survived the attempt. A shocking number of them decide out of the blue.

      IT's easy for people to put post hoc reasoning on suicide, and try to make up stories that seem to use to be the only way it would happen(projecting) but in fact its really complicated and not obvious at all.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suicide being illegal is going to be like media/software piracy being illegal. The only net effect will be that the politicians who voted FOR the law will gain more supporters/money/power. That's not even a good simile either since, in the case of suicide, the offender would no longer be around to suffer the consequences of such a law.

    27. Re:I disagree by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Nice projecting you got going on there pal.
      I mean, really:
      "Women tend to use methods that permit escape or discovery before death."
      Women don't need to be rescued by you, stop it.

      The choose less violent ways. And it's not because they want to secretly be 'rescued'.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    28. Re:I disagree by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Suicide isn't illegal. Attempted suicide is.

      You can't arrest a dead person

      The government absolutely should. I used to believe like you, but then I started reading up on suicide. Turns out, most of them are decided on out of the blue.
      I would argue you were mentally unstable.

      Of course, it gets sticier beyond that. DO you have the right to leave young children behind? but a large burden on other people? litter the streets?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    29. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's become an analytic rather than a synthetic language." T'es sérieux ? Vraiment ? Bonne chance ! LOL

    30. Re:I disagree by gx5000 · · Score: 1

      In other words, English is a crap language...noted. But for the rest of us that wish to entertain knowledgeable conversations, use of archaic or lesser used words is still enjoyable and a sign you relinquished the comic book phase of your life.

      --
      End of Line.
    31. Re:I disagree by gx5000 · · Score: 1

      Better, learn when to use it.

      --
      End of Line.
    32. Re:I disagree by gx5000 · · Score: 1

      Happy you do not suffer the curse... I do, it's been a lifelong affliction and no amount of medication is going to help me. People "off" themselves for so many different reasons that the thought of biological markers is funny to me. There is no doom switch component to be found, we all have have the capacity to feel despair and get cancer. Some people get better, some don't, some end.

      --
      End of Line.
    33. Re:I disagree by gx5000 · · Score: 1

      We're better at getting the job done ? ;-)

      --
      End of Line.
    34. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you want something done right, ask a man!

    35. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. [...] Some mental issues can be solved with medication!

      I think you have the wrong post. I never said drugs cannot change brain chemistry. What I said is that I have a problem with forcing drugs on someone against their will.

    36. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and moved on to the use-irrelevant-terminology-for-the-sake of appearances phase.

      Hint: life is not a series of hierarchical phases any more than things are evolving ~to~ anything.

      You would know that if you had never read comic books in the first place.

    37. Re:I disagree by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Well, in my reading, that seems to be the conclusion.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/11/981112075159.htm

      Although suicide rates are lower among women, women lead men two to one in suicide attempts. So, Murphy says at least 200,000 women are involved in suicide attempts annually. But he points out that attempted suicide most often is not an attempt to actually end one's life. Its purpose, he says, is to survive with changed circumstances.

      "An attempted suicide is not really an attempt at suicide in about 95 percent of cases. It is a different phenomenon. It's most often an effort to bring someone's attention, dramatically, to a problem that the individual feels needs to be solved. Suicide contains a solution in itself," he says.

      In attempted suicide, both men and women tend to use methods that allow for second thoughts or rescue. Murphy says that when people intend to survive, they choose a slowly effective, or ineffective, means such as an overdose of sleeping pills. That contrasts to the all-or-nothing means like gunshots or hanging used by actual suicides.

      Although that is an older article.

      More humorous, the more current articles are saying women have attractiveness issues and choose the method that won't disfigure them and point out that men succeed more often because men use more violent methods.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    38. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you think I'm not worthless doesn't make my life worth living. If I need medication to stay alive, I'm a flawed specimen that does not deserve to take up resources which can be used by others.
      Captcha: cutoff

    39. Re:I disagree by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      In other words, English is a crap language

      What language isn't crap? (let's leave the spelling thing out of this though - there is no excuse for English there).

    40. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The impulse RIGHT NOW is often spur of the moment but they've been thinking about it usually for quite some time. It takes a while to get accustomed to the idea of killing yourself, etc.

      You're right, though...there is a lot of evidence that a large number of suicides happen within minutes of "the impulse"...

    41. Re:I disagree by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      OK, since this is the pedantic thread, they can make sense, but have to mean something different than the literal meaning.

      Nope. See definitions 1 and 3: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom

    42. Re:I disagree by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Idioms don't have to make sense when taken literally.

      Actually, try this. And see what you think:

      There's "try and". Which, as you can see, is a perfectly sensible construct.

      And there's "try to". Which is also sensible, but has an obviously different meaning.

      And finally, there's the idiomatic "try and". Which doesn't make literal sense, because it's actually just being sloppy with the above. But that's idioms for you.

    43. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think replacing every instance of "who" with "whom" has become the new thing people do to try and sound smart. The old thing was replacing "... and me" with "... and I." People just can't believe that sometimes it's correct to say "do you want to go to the store with Jane and me?"

      Damn kids.

    44. Re:I disagree by coyote_oww · · Score: 1

      more evidence: suicide survivor Ken Baldwin - 'I instantly realized that everything in my life that Id thought was unfixable was totally fixable.....except for having just jumped.'

    45. Re:I disagree by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I was referring to a real language like 'merican English, not that foreign gibberish you're spouting. I may be a pedant, but I'm an American pedant.

    46. Re:I disagree by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      more evidence: suicide survivor Ken Baldwin - 'I instantly realized that everything in my life that I'd thought was unfixable was totally fixable.....except for having just jumped.'

      Achieving perspective as to what is really (un)important in life helps (tip: most things are relatively very unimportant). Unfortunately, it often only comes at these point-of-no-return moments, like the moment my wife died in my arms at exactly 3 PM, Friday, January 13, 2006. Make the most of what you learn. If possible, sit down, think ahead and figure it out before it's too late. Just my $.02.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    47. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly are speaking from a stance of ignorance. So read up. The single greatest predictor of whether you will commit suicide is if you have attempted suicide already (up until now, perhaps). Almost 1% of those who attempt suicide die within one year.

      Posting anonymously to retain mods.

    48. Re:I disagree by khallow · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain to me why "try and" seems to have become so popular? It makes no logical sense as a replacement for "try to", and appears to be favored over the latter for purely euphonic reasons.

      Euphonic reasons sound good enough.

    49. Re:I disagree by Talderas · · Score: 1

      He/him is a good starting point. Replace who/whom with he/him. If he makes more sense you who if him makes more sense use whom.

      Simple.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    50. Re:I disagree by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Nice, that's the most accurate description I've seen written on the topic.

      I'm not alone in noticing that geek thinking is often very heavily weighted towards logic-and-reason and less with emotion, but nobody told me I could be sucked in by my own 'logic' and 'reason' that is at the time as distorted and untrustworthy as emotion in this context.

      For myself at least it leads to a lot of circular thinking that feels like leaning on the accelerator while the transmission's in neutral.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    51. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least some people who use less effective means do so because they want to leave less of a "mess", not because they intend to survive. Especially people who feel they are already a burden on loved ones. Gunshots are messier than pills.

    52. Re:I disagree by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Imagine having to make a rational decision as to the benefits and costs of continued existence,

      What costs? What benefits? How is the valuation of them anything but completely subjective and arbitrary? Maybe they are right, and most of us just have unrealistically optimistic outlooks exaggerating the benefits and downplaying the costs.

      Most people, aside from the very aged and the very depressed would value continued existence quite highly.

      Most people watch reality TV or sports or both. I won't go anywhere near either. Do I have a mental condition that should be treated with medication?

      Is that sort of concern really a sign of a healthy mind?

      Would you describe the people running government or wall street as having healthy minds? Do they lack sufficient empathy? Are they too self-centered and greedy? They are literalyl destroying society... lets medicate that out of them.

      I mean we'll medicate a 9 year old who finds school unengaging, and we'll medicate someone who thinks winter is a bit depressing, but the sociopathic tendancies and unhinged greed that drive wallstreet and government? That's healthy?

      To anyone whose had a friend or relative or even themselves been saved by medication from suicide, I do not mean to offend you.

      But I get REALLY leery about deciding to fix other people's mental state to some arbitrary point of 'normal'. On the one hand I recognize that there absolutely are illnesses out there, but on the other I'm skeptical of anyone who says they are the authority on what someone should think? And basing anything simply on what is 'normal' lacks validity. Look only to 19th century diagnosis of 'hysteria'...

      And today? Don't like Football? Enjoy math too much? Distrust authority? Value your privacy? Lets fix you right up. Is that far fetched?

      I say its not far fetched enough. :(

    53. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's only if'n it works

    54. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which makes it expected or just acceptable?
      maybe both.

    55. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's good that you know this, but the problem lies with most high school graduates in the US don't know how to use certain words.
      I see a lot of the following that were taught even way back in 3rd grade yet the dumb don't catch on:
      'alot' instead of 'a lot'
      their, there and they're are not used properly(there's even a manager at my work that screws this up)
      loose and lose are used in place of one another just like the above line.
      definatly...this is just stupid now that we have high-DEFINITION TVs. You think some one seeing it enough would catch on, but the other dumb that get embarrassed easily will just say 'def'
      The one that pisses me of the most is using 'literally' when they meant it figuratively.

    56. Re:I disagree by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I feel sorry for people that feel they must relinquish the comic book phase of their life.

    57. Re:I disagree by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Statistically woman attempt suicide more often than men. But men die at a much higher rate.

      That's men in the USA. Because there are plenty of guns available.

    58. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame the proper use of who vs whom can't.

      I'm confused? That was the correct use of whom?

    59. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP posted citations, where are yours?

    60. Re:I disagree by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      What? modded Insightful? WTFingF?

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    61. Re:I disagree by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain to me why "try and" seems to have become so popular?

      favored over the latter for purely euphonic reasons.

      It's easy to answer your question when you answered it yourself. Language (and grammar) is not, never has been, never will be logically constructed. Get over it.

    62. Re:I disagree by slavdude · · Score: 1

      Apropos: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/who_vs_whom Pronoun inflections are the only remnants of oblique cases in English. Indeed, they persist in other languages (such as French) that have dropped case as well. This has been your pedantic language lesson for the day. You may now return to commenting on /.

    63. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roughly a year was how long depression used to last before we had meds for it. Family would support the person and the depression would suddenly go away after an average of a year. She's going to be on those medications for the rest of her life right? Do you guys know they're additive and the withdraw symptoms are the same as the original issues?

      I'm not saying she shouldn't take them, I don't know anything about her. What I'm saying is don't ever stop looking for a better solution just because something's working for now.

  10. Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The list of eugenics propaganda is getting longer, and I'll have to study this to determine if it needs to go there. On a hunch, I'm guessing that it will. I'm not a MD, but wonder if this is even possible due to toxins the body produces right after death as well as another more obvious reason. Suicide is generally a result of depression as well as other symptoms. The obvious reason for this to fail is that currently there is no way (nor should there be) to test someones blood to determine if they are suffering from depression. They could of course determine levels of substances, but humans are adaptive and can live with a huge tolerance or lack of certain hormones, amino acids, etc...

    Now maybe it's just me, but the summary seems extremely familiar to "Detecting mental illness by analyzing your tweets", and "Detecting mental illness by analyzing your social media habits" which we have seen within the last year and a half. This one is a bit better disguised, but not disguised enough.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      First, gene marker studies are unlikely to be tainted by 'toxins'. You have the gene or you don't. Dying doesn't give you more DNA. And yes, the Holy Grail is to use objective testing to tease out the determinant basis of a bunch of subjective issues (psychiatric diseases).

      This is quite a bit different from detecting mental illness by analyzing your tweets (a tautology). It's more an attempt to find a molecular basis of why some people are twits and others not.

      Best adjust your undies. Your biases are showing.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      I agree. You're not an MD, and are unlikely to have any qualification whatsoever to draw meaningful conclusions from the summary or god forbid, if you read the article.

      I'm not really poking fun, there's no reason not to post an opinion you pulled out of your ass here, you're not responsible in any way for the science.

    3. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I read the article, what I don't see is who founded it and how they come to the determination that they can do what they claim. The article is written at a 10K view, which is fine.

      I like how you apologize for your ad hominem, but it does not take it away. The main concern I have was ignored by you. Either failed to read or really can't argue my point. Thanks for playing "I know fallacy" and have a nice day.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The list of eugenics propaganda is getting longer, and I'll have to study this to determine if it needs to go there. On a hunch, I'm guessing that it will. I'm not a MD, but wonder if this is even possible due to toxins the body produces right after death as well as another more obvious reason. Suicide is generally a result of depression as well as other symptoms. The obvious reason for this to fail is that currently there is no way (nor should there be) to test someones blood to determine if they are suffering from depression. They could of course determine levels of substances, but humans are adaptive and can live with a huge tolerance or lack of certain hormones, amino acids, etc...

      Now maybe it's just me, but the summary seems extremely familiar to "Detecting mental illness by analyzing your tweets", and "Detecting mental illness by analyzing your social media habits" which we have seen within the last year and a half. This one is a bit better disguised, but not disguised enough.

      Combined with phrenology it's possible to accurately confirm diagnostic biases - but only if you look (only) at suicides.

    5. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 2

      The attempt to find molecular basis I have disputed for two reasons. I'm sure an MD can do a better job of it, and I will be discussing this issue with friends and become more familiar with it.

      Psychiatric diseases and diagnosis have become nearly laughable. The bible used to determine a diagnosis has been the subject of controversy since it was first published, and has grown more controversial in the last 2 revisions. If you are not questioning an industry where children are diagnosed as mentally ill and put on medication because they want to play, you are a fool.

      Don't make the mistake of putting words into my mouth. I believe that some mental illnesses are real, some are treatable, some are not. That said, an industry that attempts to medicate normal people for doing normal things and diagnose them as "ill" doing as much service to humanity as the witch doctor pulling evil spirits out of people.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    6. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the article, what I don't see is who founded it and how they come to the determination that they can do what they claim. The article is written at a 10K view, which is fine.

      And yet you confused gene-expression with genetics. If you can't even understand the science, I really don't think it's fair to call it biased. BTW, the funding is there as always:

      This work was supported by an NIH Directorsâ(TM) New Innovator Award (1DP2OD007363) and a VA Merit Award (1I01CX000139-01) to ABN.

      Thanks for playing "I know fallacy" and have a nice day.

      *sigh*

    7. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by jkflying · · Score: 1

      If we could find a molecular basis for them we wouldn't have to rely on diagnosis criteria like "shows signs of anger when confronted" which can be horribly misinterpreted.

      The answer to poor science is not less science, the answer is more, better science so we can fix the problem. Science is self-correcting like that.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    8. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      The obvious reason for this to fail is that currently there is no way (nor should there be) to test someones blood to determine if they are suffering from depression.

      It's been known for quite some time that both depression and predisposition to suicides have a genetic component. So yes, you most certainly should be able to test someone's blood to determine if they are at an increased risk for depression, it's just a question of identifying which genes are responsible.

      The list of eugenics propaganda is getting longer, and I'll have to study this to determine if it needs to go there

      Recognizing that our genes have an effect on us isn't "eugenics." It's common-sense. DNA controls the color of my eyes, my skin, the type of hair I have, my height, my body type, the relative chances I have of getting heart disease or certain types of cancer...why you would think it has no effect whatsoever on my mental health is beyond me. Studies only cross into eugenics if they start advocating people with certain genes shouldn't breed, or shouldn't breed with people with a different set of genes, or should be eliminated completely from the gene pool. Saying we have genetic differences, some of which provide advantages and other which provide disadvantages is just fact. Figuring out which genes are responsible for those advantages and disadvantages is science.

    9. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      If we could find a molecular basis for them we wouldn't have to rely on diagnosis criteria like "shows signs of anger when confronted" which can be horribly misinterpreted.

      Not only can it be misinterpreted, but it is an absolutely normal reaction! Should you be "diagnosed" and forced to take medication for not changing your opinion when someone yells at you? Come now, it's not just a matter of more or less science. It's what the science is attempting to do, and whether or not there is any benefit to society if the "science" runs its full course. Unfortunately Science is not always self-correcting in time to prevent massive harm to society and civilizations.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    10. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the same person that didn't think a lack of basic physics knowledge was relevant to an opinion disagreeing with physicists on HAARP on a previous story, so I'm sensing a pattern here. After all, the most important point to science debates on slashdot is correlation does not equal causation, therefore you can't argue that being knowledgeable about a subject causes people to make better judgements, it is merely a chance correlation.

    11. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by Prune · · Score: 1

      Why does it have to be propaganda? While eugenics is tainted by its association with unfortunate historical happenstance, it doesn't have to be. Many scientists are more or less in favor of genetics, with James Watson (co-discoverer of DNA's structure) a prime example. What is the alternative? When you remove natural selection pressure (and we have very strongly diluted it, and continue to do so ever more), there is very little selection left; thus, the average genetic fitness of the population will worsen over time, even if you allow a lot of leeway in how you define the fitness function and what weights you assign to its individual factors (this is because mutation without selection would tend to lead to fitness function evaluation that one would get from a random genetic distribution). The only alternative is to replace it with some sort of artificial selection. A promise of modern biotechnology may very well turn out that such a thing can be carried out without restricting the reproductive rights of individuals by ways of ever more advanced embryo genetic vetting and selection, combined with genetic engineering.

      In any case, some form of eugenics is already in wide practice by individuals, and often in ways that are detrimental to the human population overall (see, for example, sex-selective abortion in China). Some sort of insitutionalized oversight of the process will be necessary if for nothing else than to counterbalance the potential damage that individuals' practice will cause.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    12. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      And yet you confused gene-expression with genetics.

      I did no such thing. In the first post I mentioned that there are numerous things to detect and measure, none of them were genes. I really hope you are not trying to claim that the only cause of suicide is genetic disorder.

      BTW, the funding is there as always:

      According to the referenced article this is a wide field study with 64 references to track down. Funding for certain projects is not always obvious, but harder when you have to research that many connections. Shelters to hide fund sources are not something new or unheard of.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    13. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      While eugenics is tainted by its association with unfortunate historical happenstance, it doesn't have to be.

      That is a terribly naive statement. You ignoring human nature won't take away human nature. The same things we see today were happening in our first records of political history. Read Plato's "The Republic" and "The Dialogues of Plato" for starters.

      As you stated, correlation != causation. Humans cope with numerous things very well. Even if you could detect a "suicide" gene, it does not mean that someone will attempt suicide. So what is the benefit of detection? Stop and think about that one for a bit, then go back to what I just said is a naive statement.

      What is the alternative? When you remove natural selection pressure (and we have very strongly diluted it, and continue to do so ever more), there is very little selection left; thus, the average genetic fitness of the population will worsen over time, even if you allow a lot of leeway in how you define the fitness function and what weights you assign to its individual factors (this is because mutation without selection would tend to lead to fitness function evaluation that one would get from a random genetic distribution). The only alternative is to replace it with some sort of artificial selection.

      Ah ha! So you are for eugenics and not so naive after all!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    14. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by geekoid · · Score: 1

      YOu are the fool because you clearly don''t understand why the book is controversial.
      It's a GUIDELINE, that is all. The primary controversy is the insurance companies have broken these guideline into hard line that become difficult to bill for.

      Don't be that idiot who stands that saying 'X doesn't work' becasue of some other controversy within the field.

      " If you are not questioning an industry where children are diagnosed as mentally ill and put on medication because they want to play"
      No one does that.

      " That said, an industry that attempts to medicate normal people for doing normal things and diagnose them as "ill" doing as much service to humanity as the witch doctor pulling evil spirits out of people."
      citation?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " Should you be "diagnosed" and forced to take medication for not changing your opinion when someone yells at you? "
      no one said anything about yelling, they said confronted.

      Thinking, learn it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You deserve this and that's just a start.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    17. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "The obvious reason for this to fail is that currently there is no way (nor should there be) to test someones blood to determine if they are suffering from depression."

      More then likely a lot of long term depression is probably a break down in the body's resiliency from being exposed to long term stress over time. i.e. being bullied in school, anxiety, constant work, etc.

      All these things add up over time and most likely do some damage to regulatory mechanisms that most people are oblivious to but some people would like to blame it on genes of parents. I'm certain our modern environment plays a huge role in breaking people because by and large human beings are still deeply confused animals who don't really live in reality of how scientifically their body works and how to live in a way that doesn't break it.

    18. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      My example of yelling is a type of confrontation. You trying to nitpick does not change my point or argue my point. Fallacy, learn to avoid it and actually debate.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    19. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      This is the same person that didn't think a lack of basic physics knowledge was relevant to an opinion disagreeing with physicists on HAARP on a previous story, so I'm sensing a pattern here.

      No matter who you were referring to makes no difference. This is just an ad homimen that diverts from the points, instead of offering any countering thought. You sound like a person that can't debate their own opinion so try to get revenge hiding as AC.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    20. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      My example of yelling is a type of confrontation. You trying to nitpick does not change my point or argue my point. Fallacy, learn to avoid it and actually debate.

      It is a tell-tale of the inelegant, clumsy debater. Geekoid's entire discussion philosophy revolves around nitpicking, unnecessary snark, logical fallacies and ad hominen attacks. As such there's precious little room for intelligent discussion with the man.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    21. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      While I don't personally know any kids that are victims of the common story of kids being drugged for wanting to play, I am personally aware of two of my son's friends who have been diagnosed as mentally ill and drugged because they insisted that they wanted to go home when a rival state decided to kidnap them.

    22. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Let me point out your absolute incorrectness on this subject. So yes, you most certainly should be able to test someone's blood to determine if they are at an increased risk for depression, it's just a question of identifying which genes are responsible.

      To believe that genes are the only cause of depression is absolutely idiotic on so many levels that I don't know where to begin. Chemical dependency causes depression, as does changing hormone levels (which is very normal during our life times), and social and economic status play huge roles in our psychological well being.

      Do you see how absolutely flawed your argument is? If you don't get it, rate yourself for desire to commit suicide today. Go tell our boss to "f&%k off" and quit your job, and apply only for rocket science positions at NASA. After your unemployment runs out, debt is through the roof, you sell everything you own, and you live on the streets with no family of friends measure your desire to commit suicide again. I'll bet that you feel much more inclined after losing everything you have of value and having small hopes for a future.

      Recognizing that our genes do not control every aspect of our lives is common sense. Claiming that everything is genetically controlled is exactly the definition of eugenics. Taking action to those beliefs is secondary to having such a belief.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    23. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Then why are you against using molecular markers? They allow us to avoid the stupid diagnosis criteria I was referring to.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    24. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Do you see how absolutely flawed your argument is?

      No, but I see how absolutely flawed yours is. It's called the straw man fallacy. Here's what you said:

      To believe that genes are the only cause of depression is absolutely idiotic on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.

      Emphasis mine in the quote above. Your argument is, of course, absolutely correct. Unfortunately it's not what I've claimed and it's not what this study claims. You're arguing against a position that doesn't exist. This is what I've said:

      It's been known for quite some time that both depression and predisposition to suicides have a genetic component.

      A component, as in one factor out of many. In addition, I also said:

      you most certainly should be able to test someone's blood to determine if they are at an increased risk for depression

      I didn't say you could test to see if someone has depression, I said you could test to see if they have an increased risk of getting depression. So now that we've cleared that up, I can address your other comments.

      If you don't get it, rate yourself for desire to commit suicide today. Go tell our boss to "f&%k off" and quit your job, and apply only for rocket science positions at NASA. After your unemployment runs out, debt is through the roof, you sell everything you own, and you live on the streets with no family of friends measure your desire to commit suicide again. I'll bet that you feel much more inclined after losing everything you have of value and having small hopes for a future.

      First of all, I'm pretty sure I would still not commit suicide. I would quit doing idiotic things and get my life back on track. And it would be fairly easy to do so under your scenario. That's not to say there's nothing that would make me consider suicide. If I found out today I had early-onset Alzheimer's, I would consider suicide before it gets to the point where I'm no longer capable of taking care of myself. If I found out I had terminal cancer and a sufficiently low probability of recovery through chemo, I might consider not suffering through chemo, and instead spending the rest of my relatively healthy life with family and friends, and committing suicide when the cancer effects get sufficiently bad. That's not to say I have a genetic predisposition to suicide, I probably don't.

      That said, you know those stories of kids who get bullied on facebook and decide to commit suicide? Or those people who commit suicide after their boyfriend or girlfriend breaks up with them? The vast majority of people would never commit suicide under those circumstances. But if you have a genetic predisposition, it might be enough to send you over the edge. Detecting this and being aware you're at an increased risk could lead you to take steps to prevent it by forming a support network, going on medication, avoiding medication known to increase suicide rates, etc.

      As a real example, I've paid for a genetic profile on myself and know that I am at increased risk for Type II diabetes. That doesn't mean I *have* Type II diabetes. It means I'm more careful about what I eat now, and watch my weight carefully. I also know I'm at increased risk for certain types of cancer, so I started getting screened for those at an earlier age to increase my chances of catching it early if I develop it. Which I might not.

    25. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the well thought out and intelligent response. I do understand where your thoughts are, but where I have difficulty is in that we can't remove human nature from the picture.

      The ability for you to have such tests is fine, but the problem is that historically this information has been used for extremely malicious purposes. Not occasionally mind you, but every single time. The good nature you imply simply fails to match any history. This is where I wonder how much of this is being funded by people with inclinations toward eugenics. Look at some of the responses here where people claim it's necessary to reduce population where natural selection has been removed.

      The benefit of genetic detection is extremely questionable. We can measure countless other factors which are not so intrusive and come to the same exact conclusion. We can look at a person's habits, social and economic status, and of course the most important would be their daily behavior and determine much easier that a person has a potential risk of suicide than we can by a genetic predisposition.

      Even if we have said testing, and said a person is genetically predisposed to suicide, what is our action? Give them a cushy job they don't deserve? Give them lots of tax payer money? Give them counseling for something they don't necessarily require? The easier answer of "just inform them" does not match historical actions.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    26. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Go back and read "why", I was pretty clear on that point. I have elaborated in other areas, so search the thread for my responses if you did not receive enough information in _your_ particular response.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    27. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      The ability for you to have such tests is fine, but the problem is that historically this information has been used for extremely malicious purposes.

      Everything has been used for malicious purposes. We're typing on a computer right now. You may have used GPS to get someplace. Well, targetting computers in conjunction with GPS are used to kill people. I carry a pocket knife with me because it's often useful. People get stabbed with pocket knives. We use airplanes to quickly travel around the world. The military uses airplanes to drop bombs.

      I'm not saying that means we should take things lightly. On the contrary, it means we need to be constantly vigilant of every action we take and examine the ethics behind them. It's far too easy to accidentally take a step too far as a result of tunnel vision when you have a particular goal. But you can't replace vigilance with ignorance. Scientists figuring out which specific genes are related to increased suicidal behavior? That's just knowledge. It's ethically neutral. When the government or employers start asking for DNA tests, I'll be right there protesting with you. That's what leads to a Gattaca society.

    28. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      When the government or employers start asking for DNA tests, The government has already been doing this. I guess it's okay for "those criminals" though right?

      The rest is a false analogy. I can choose to carry a pocket knife or not. I can choose to use a computer or GPS device. I have no choice when it comes to having genetic markers.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    29. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by jkflying · · Score: 1

      I've done that, and all I've seen is that you think current diagnoses are terribly unreliable. I don't see how you are against some way of improving the system.

      They are finding chemical markers in the blood which are present when people are depressed etc and which predispose them to suicide. This isn't a genetic measurement so your eugenics argument is BS, it is to do with the chemical composition of the blood resulting from conditions experienced by the person.

      You clearly understand nothing of the involved biology and are doing the same thing that the armchair engineers were with the hyperloop, or like an illiterate person pointing out that if you read a book it might cause your brain to melt if they arrange the letters the wrong way.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    30. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Then you have no idea what eugenics is? I'm guessing that you really did not search too hard for what I stated in this thread. As mentioned previously, search the "whole" thread if for my name, not just this instance.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    31. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      The government has already been doing this. I guess it's okay for "those criminals" though right?

      Generally speaking, we do agree as a society that convicted criminals lose some rights (although not all). I mean, normally I would say that it's not alright to hold someone against their will, but do you have an ethical objection to jails in general? Where exactly to draw the line is a complex ethical question that would be difficult to solve in this forum. I am personally not against taking the DNA from people when a warrant is issued in a case where DNA would be relevant evidence. That said, I've never researched the subject enough, and am willing to entertain the possibility I could be convinced otherwise.

      The rest is a false analogy. I can choose to carry a pocket knife or not. I can choose to use a computer or GPS device. I have no choice when it comes to having genetic markers.

      That's not the analogy I meant to imply. I mean to say you may object to the use of GPS technology in order to have unmanned drones bomb locations without any human supervision. But you don't object to the researching of global positioning technologies in general simply because they would make that scenario possible. Similarly, I would object to the use of DNA by employers who want to avoid the risk of hiring someone prone to depression, which this research makes possible. But I don't object to the research. Knowledge is separate from ethics, and we should never be afraid to learn anything.

    32. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Not that I am pacifist mind you, but I have not approved of GPS being used in unmanned drones. When you remove the humans from the horrors of war, you don't "fix" things. You tend to make them worse.

      My position on criminals is also mixed. If you read something like "5 felonies a day" you may change your mind. The majority of prisoners we have serving hard time are there for possession of small amounts of drugs, drunk driving, and other minor crimes. Do I think a rapist should have DNA extracted? Sure, because it's possible then to link to unsolved crimes. The guy arrested for legally purchasing a small amount of medical marijuana should not. Claiming that "all criminals" deserve something indicates that you are at least somewhat ignorant as to "whom" is in jail and "why" they are in jail. This problem has been increased by the privatization of Prisons, where it's now financially beneficial to keep jails at capacity.

      I agree, to a point, that knowledge is not a bad thing and should be pursued. There are ethics involved in gaining certain knowledge that we as a society should absolutely deny and vocally be against.

      I'll warn you that I have never investigated this much, there are too many other things going on in the world for me to study everything. That said, it was rumored a few years ago that the US Government was investigating methods of exterminating a certain ethnicity (Asian) using genetic weaponry. While they may not be alone in investigating, or perhaps have had no plans on how to commit genocide, why would we wish to "learn" something so sinister?

      Now lets take a "good" example just so you see I'm not a loon claiming everything is bad and get some reasonable perspective (reasonable to me at least).

      Guns were invented for many reasons. Hunting became easier and food was more plentiful. Of course some bad people figured out that it's also easier to shoot someone than bludgeon or stab them, so we have used them in wars as well. I'm not anti-gun at all.

      A gun can only kill a limited amount of people before the gunman either runs out of bullets or is killed by someone else with a gun. This means that the shittiest person with a gun can cause harm, but what I feel is an acceptable level of harm for the risk and privilege of me being able to own a gun.

      The problem with bio-weapons and genetic weapons is that there is risk for massive amounts of casualties before someone catches on. A single flu virus can kill millions and millions. A genetic weapon has similar capability.

      Now I do realize also that it's a step from "detecting depression" to "killing people" using genetic code. The morality however, needs very little development. If someone decides to find every person that has a certain genetic trait and jail them, the list is already made.

      There is more and more push for all of us to get DNA into massive government databases. Most children at birth today registered without anyone knowing (depending on where you live), and without anyone's permission.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    33. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you have the DNA for something doesn't mean those genes are active Every hear of traits skipping a generation? Every hear of 'you are what you eat'? What you eat does effect how your DNA is replicated.

    34. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by jkflying · · Score: 1

      From wikipedia:

      Eugenics (\yü-je-niks\) is the bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.

      It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits.

      This technique has nothing to do with eugenics. If anything, it is about preventing 'unfit' people from killing themselves, completely opposite to the usual eugenics rhetoric. Is there some aspect of eugenics that I missed which you were referring to?

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    35. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      If a database contains genetic markers, it can be easily used for bad (eugenics) purposes just as easily as it can be used for "good" purposes. Claiming "it can't happen" contradicts history.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    36. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Except they aren't genetic markers. They are biomarkers. Molecules found in the blood, not data found by sequencing somebody's DNA. They cross-referenced some of it in stage 2 of 5 with some previous studies about genetics, but that is as close as it gets. Chances are that 99.95% of people have the DNA to code these biomarkers anyway, but it only gets accessed when you are seriously depressed. No genetic link here, no eugenics link.

      The idea is they do a blood test when you check into a psych ward to see if you are a suicide risk, just like checking your cholesterol to see if you are a heart-attack risk. They don't sequence your DNA and profile you on it.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    37. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Personally I'm a skeptic. If they draw blood to test, what prevents them from saving the full structure? Nothing, except for someone's claim that it won't be saved. Considering how our government has demanded that hosting companies hand over data under threat, do you honestly believe that the potential does not exist for similar treatment?

      Assuming intentions are always good is not necessarily a bad thing mind you. At the same time, I believe that being skeptic is an exceptional trait.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    38. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by jkflying · · Score: 1

      That can happen in any blood test, any saliva swab, any stool sample, any fingernail clipping... and it's easier to control/destroy physical material than it is to control/destroy bits on a computer. Currently running a DNA sequence costs a few thousand dollars a pop, so they aren't going to sneak one in when you aren't looking.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    39. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Implying that "they are going to do it anyway" should not imply that we have to just lay down and get mowed over (not that you did that, I'm circumventing a possible statement).

      To imply that money is an object to a Government that works on fiat and can print as much as they want is very out of touch with reality. You don't know what they spend your money on now, so have no idea if this is already being funded by your tax dollars.

      Additionally, check history on the resources provided to Germany's eugenics science in the 30s and 40s by some extremely wealth US families (and one in the UK). Those families are still around with too much money and could easily be funding this whole project.

      The hard part is not the sampling, it's figuring out the information that a person wants to use to discriminate. What happens if you are denied a right to protest because you are potentially depressed? Look at how profiling is currently used! There is no benefit to this technology that outweighs the risks in my opinion.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    40. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by jkflying · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that just because I debunked your genetic markers argument I am working for 'the man'. BS. Please re-examine your thinking.

      I just think that it is pointless getting worked up about a new kind of blood test. The additional risk it creates for the kind of abuse you speak of is negligible. We have plenty of things to discriminate on already that we don't use, this is equivalent to 'sweaty palms' because it can change on a day-to-day basis.

      If you are concerned about government abuse, spend your efforts on something more worthwhile, like hosting an EFF fundraiser.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    41. Re:Sounds like more eugenics propaganda by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Huh? You have not debunked the genetic marker argument. You made an assumption that it's safe, I make no assumption. I also consider your point about them only looking for a certain gene sequence wrong. In order for someone find a specific gene sequence, they have to have the whole sample. In order for them to detect the gene(s) responsible, they have to have and use whole samples.

      You have given lots of excuses and assumptions claiming this is safe claim it's expensive. All of those assumptions are wrong based on history. Now if I was unwise to the corruption we have in the Government, I would probably have the same opinion as you. I had my tenure being the uber patriot believing that our politicians were 'good' honest people looking out for citizens best interests. I ignored people telling me how it was bad and what was coming. I happily served in the US Army believing I was working for some greater good. It was then that my eyes started to open, and slowly I realized what an ignorant fool I had been. That was decades ago now, and I have learned a lot since then.

      If you give people shitty people power, shitty things will happen. We have proven this over and over and over again.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  11. How to get a blood sample by Russ1642 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We need a blood sample to test for suicidal tendencies. Could you make a small cut in your wrist please?

    1. Re:How to get a blood sample by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get some when i'm under that train.

    2. Re:How to get a blood sample by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Get some when i'm under that train.

      See, that's what happens what you get off the wagon...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:How to get a blood sample by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      I'm ok, I'm just thinking, you know? Why don't you get me a Pepsi?

  12. Suicide marker? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 2

    Maybe this is perhaps a sign of severe depression rather than simply suicide. I read the article and depression wasn't mentioned until the end and only briefly. Happy people don't kill themselves.

    1. Re:Suicide marker? by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

      Happy people don't kill themselves.

      I disagree. While undoubtedly the vast majority of suicides are due to severe depression and unhappy people, there are a number of other reasons why people commit suicide. For some, they want to go out with dignity. Others have a debilitating illness and want to be in their right mind when they die rather than die unable to even recognize their own children.

      Now that doesn't mean that suicide is the answer or that I condone suicide or anything, merely that there are some people who commit suicide without being really unhappy.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Suicide marker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thus the 80% success rate rather than 100%.

    3. Re:Suicide marker? by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      The 80% success rate is because people these people are failures. They can't even kill themselves without screwing it up.

    4. Re:Suicide marker? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " Happy people don't kill themselves."
      wrong.
      You should research the topic.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Suicide marker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you point out times when happy people kill themselves?

    6. Re:Suicide marker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking hypocrite.

    7. Re:Suicide marker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Suicide marker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes

  13. Some work to do by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

    As the researcher admits:

    The next step, he says, is to look at the levels of these biomarkers in the general population and in other at-risk populations, such as those with depression or suffering from stress or bereavement. “Suicide is not just related to mental illness,” he says. “It’s a very complex behaviour (sic*).”

    That might just be an understatement, there. Generalizing results to the population as a whole, as opposed to people with known disorders that already predispose them to a higher risk of suicide (and other behavior-related premature mortality) would be the interesting part if it worked.

    *Yes, I know that "behaviour" is the correct spelling in British English, but since I'm writing this in the US, I feel obligated to note that I am not misspelling it in my version of written language. It's my way of honoring The Economist magazine's editorial policy, in reverse, that is.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
    1. Re:Some work to do by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      I honestly think sic isn't needed there and I believe most news organizations are phasing it out in general.

      I think it's better to assume that quotes are correctly quoted in the first place and to only use sic in instances where you specifically want to point out that the quote is mangling grammar or spelling in order to convey a specific impression to the reader.

    2. Re:Some work to do by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      I honestly think sic isn't needed there and I believe most news organizations are phasing it out in general.

      I agree, and I thought it was unnecessary and probably just a petty little dig when I saw The Economist do it. In addition to that, they "correct" proper names of US institutions as if they were merely descriptions.

      Anyway, from thence comes my retaliatory use of "sic".

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    3. Re:Some work to do by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It's supposed to be "[sic]", not "(sic)".

      Pedants of the world, challenge each other!

    4. Re:Some work to do by geekoid · · Score: 1

      False.
        Traditionally the sic appears after the quote in parentheses (round brackets): "(sic)", especially when the error is obvious
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Some work to do by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      But the OP placed it within the quotation marks.

      “It’s a very complex behaviour (sic*).”

      He should have written it

      “It’s a very complex behaviour." (sic)

      Or as I advised

      “It’s a very complex behaviour [sic]."

      which suggests that it specifically applies to the last word.

      From the Wikipedia article you cited:

      When placed within quoted material, square brackets are almost invariably used in modern U.S. usage: "[sic]". Traditionally the sic appears after the quote in parentheses (round brackets): "(sic)", especially when the error is obvious.

      Furthermore, the asterisk should have appeared after the closing quotation mark.

    6. Re:Some work to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Above which we read: "When placed within quoted material, square brackets are almost invariably used in modern U.S. usage: "[sic]"."

    7. Re:Some work to do by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should write the "Slashdot Style Manual" (Creative Commons licensed 'natch). We could give the MLA some competition, and include useful modern usages such as "whooosh" and "IANAL".

  14. My choice of predictor by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    If the blood is coming out of the patient's wrists in spurts, out of a gunshot wound to the head (where the patient has the gun in one hand and a note in the other), then it's likely the person is suicidal.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  15. It's a slippery slope by lintmint · · Score: 1

    Soon tere will be biomarkers for other types of behaviour and then employers are going to want blood tests from perspective employees. Before you know it if you have marker xyz you'll be virtually unemployable.
    Walk into any AA meeting and ask the members if they can exercise choice over their impuses.

    1. Re:It's a slippery slope by coyote_oww · · Score: 1

      The idea is if that if you know what is causing the behavior, perhaps you can remediate better with an improved drug/drug cocktail. You can't fix it very well if you don't know what is wrong. Fixing it would make these people much more employable, generally. I think Hollywood prefers them insane, but elsewhere not so much.

      Employers are already drug testing for a large number of professions. Its not Gattaca by a long stretch though. Personally, I don't want to work with people that are unsafe for mental heath, drug/alcohol problems, or whatever. If there is a marker for unsafe, by all means test for it. If I come back with "not enough fear of heights" and they restrict me from working in high places, all well and good - I benefit by being safer. The argument that this translates into no job is a slippery slope fallacy. There are already jobs I cannot do because of markers - I was turned down for air traffic control for medical reasons. Can't be a pilot either. But I am still employed making a decent living. There are plenty of jobs for 'average' people with a little education and willingness to work.

      And yeah, being an active alcoholic is going to impair your life. But I don't think it's as bleak as your making it out to be. My employer offers programs for employees for a variety of pseudo-mental health issues (addictions, stress, marital problems, difficult kids, etc). And of course, actual mental heath for people with more serious issues.

  16. Not "someone", but "men". by zayyd · · Score: 1

    Using blood samples taken by the coroner from nine men who had committed suicide, they found six molecular signs, or biomarkers, that they say can identify people at risk of committing suicide.... To check whether these biomarkers could predict hospitalizations related to suicide or suicide attempts, the researchers analysed gene-expression data from 42 men with bipolar disorder and 46 men with schizophrenia.

    I'm curious to know how useful this information is at this stage... From wikipedia: "Statistics indicate that males die much more often by means of suicide than do females; however, reported suicide attempts are 3 times more common among females than males." Statistically, suicide is not the same as a suicide attempt. This really demands a similar study on women, or even better, all sexes in one study.

  17. Difficult by JunkyardCat · · Score: 1

    A lot of failed suicide attempts were never intended to be fatal, just pleas for attention or a variety of disorders. Successful suicides are very difficult to prosecute regardless of the legality.

    1. Re:Difficult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then a lot of failed suicide attepts were because of the lack of biomarkers ? What If a person tested doesn't have the biomarkers and wanted to become a hero? The act of hero... like running into burning buildings, stopping cars by jumping in front could be considered suicide prone but without the biomarkers, what do we get... a superhero or just plain stupid ?

  18. easier way by tr0p · · Score: 1

    Soon they will dispense with these formalities and simply check for the presence of pharmaceuticals in your blood (these are usually present in the conditions mentioned in the article so its just a matter of time until an academic study shows it). Since the doctors and hospitals themselves are usually responsible for creating this condition, they'll be able to justify forcibly holding anybody against their will. Boycott big pharma.

    --

    My only regret... is that I have... bonitis..

  19. Unhealthy "mind" - unhealthy body ...? by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    Not understanding the abstract. What kind of biomarkers? Do they indicate certain genes or do they indicate certain chemicals that are more prevalent during depression?

    If they indicate certain chemicals, then could those chemicals perhaps be responsible for depressed people having worse health and less energy than happy people? Of course depression is usually due to a variety of reasons, but could their elimination perhaps help depressed people recover faster?

    If they indicate certain genes, then that's a story I'm familiar with.

  20. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tom Cruise said psychiatry was a sham. And he's an expert. You won't suppress my thetan levels you psycho-pharma shills!

    1. Re:Bullshit by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

      They should make Scientology in a pill format, but I am pretty sure it would only come as a large suppository with a dry rough surface.

      --
      I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  21. Confirmation Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I probably have six biomarkers in common with Charles Manson, provided you look hard enough. That doesn't mean I'm likely to be a serial killer.

    1. Re:Confirmation Bias by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Do your other six personalities agree?

  22. Let me guess by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    And the biomarkers are caused by... {rolls dice} ...drinking coffee!

    Tune in next week when... {flips coin} ...drinking coffee can stave-off suicidal tendencies!

    Oh, and game shows are back!

    1. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Tune in next week when... {flips coin} ...drinking coffee can stave-off suicidal tendencies!

      Don't laugh. A lot of depressed people self-medicate with caffeine, nicotine, and/or ethanol.

  23. Biggest Sign of Which by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is blood outside of the body

  24. Check Please.... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    “Suicide is not just related to mental illness,” he says. “It’s a very complex behaviour.”"

    Self promoting prick. It's mental illness. Stop trying to elevate your work beyond what it is.

    "Niculescu says that this type of work is usually done with much larger sample sizes but that he and his colleagues used rigorous, multi-step methods to weed out false positives."

    You have a fucking small sample size. Deal with it! And the sample was that of men with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Not everyone who commits suicide is bipolar disorder or schizophrenic!! And in the end it was the clinical measures of mood and mental state that were the predictor of suicide, not the blood markers. In fact without the blood markers you can still predict people who would commit suicide. So what's the purpose of the blood markers? Could it be you have a product you want to sell.

    1. Re:Check Please.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Self promoting prick. It's mental illness. Stop trying to elevate your work beyond what it is.

      As soon as you stop trying to gloss over a wide range of rational human behavior. Numerous suicides are completely rational, due to pending and painful death from cancer, from abject poverty, when confronting torture, when sacrificing oneself to leave money or food for the surviving family, or when saving the life of others by stepping in front of a dangerous weapon to deflect it. (I've done the latter: and *lord* was I glad I'm as fast as I am to take control of the weapon. For most folks, it would have been suicide to protect the victim and give them a chance to run.)

      So don't just assume it's "mental illness". The authors of the paper didn.t

  25. Dead != Consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can a dead person sign a contract to allow their blood to be used in this research? Does their family get part of the grant money?

  26. antipsychotic by w4r0nc0re · · Score: 1

    with regard to this article's claim: "researchers could predict hospitalizations at 80% in data from 42 men with bipolar disorder and 46 men with schizophrenia." Then, are Neuroleptic drugs the answer? From Wikipedia (Neuroleptic): "All antipsychotic drugs tend to block D2 receptors in the dopamine pathways of the brain. This means that dopamine released in these pathways has less effect. Excess release of dopamine in the mesolimbic pathway has been linked to psychotic experiences. It has also been proven[citation needed] less dopamine released in the prefrontal cortex in the brain, and excess dopamine released from all other pathways, has also been linked to psychotic experiences, caused by abnormal dopaminergic function as a result of patients suffering from schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. The additional effects on serotonin receptors may be why some of them can benefit the "negative symptoms" of schizophrenia.[87]" So, what receptor blocking does Thorazine offer, for example? From Wikipedia: "Dopamine receptors (subtypes D1, D2, D3 and D4), Serotonin receptors (5-HT1 and 5-HT2), with anxiolytic, and antiaggressive properties, Histamine receptors, 1- and 2-adrenergic receptors, and M1 and M2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors." The count of receptors blocked are not well diminished with other Neuroleptics. No neuroleptic drug blocks only D2 or only (D2, 5-HT1, and 5-HT2.) If such a drug did exist, it would be reasonable to expect that everybody starts using it. The fact that the mental disorders listed have only been correlated to the D2 receptor also brings up this question: Are we just trying to prevent clients from experiencing a Power Trip? Back to the article's claim: "genes: predict suicidal behaviour by analyzing someone's blood; can identify people at risk of committing suicide." The judicial treatment of the word "schizophrenia" is (from observed judges) to define the term as "someone at risk to harm oneself or others." If I accept this as the definition, I lose faith with Neurologists and Psychiatrists. Libertarians are also on point as being deinstitutionalist because of the principle of noninitiation of force. A major decision from the courts on intervention/intitutionalization vs. rights was made on the subject [Can you force someone to sign up for Medicaid?] A typical three-week Hospital stay to address mental health Costs Federal Medicaid $48,000.00 According to a prominent court decision, Yes you Can force someone to sign up for Medicaid. Also, Hospitals offer no choice as to Which Neuroleptic is administered: In fact, most mental health patients are subject to Takedowns which include injections. In many cases in Hospitals, the involved Psychiatrist (who perscribes the drug used) has not met you. In most cases (eg. screaming patient), from what I hear, Ativan is used.

  27. 80% success rate? by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

    So when this test goes into practice, you've "only" got a 1-in-5 chance of unjustly being put into restraints in your hospital bed "for your own good"?

    1. Re:80% success rate? by dala1 · · Score: 1

      Take 10000 people, with 1% (100) of those being suicidal. If you test everyone, and the test has a 20% chance of incorrect diagnosis, then you will incorrectly diagnose 20 suicidal people and 1980 non-suicidal people.

  28. Assumptions by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    Apparently they have found a marker for suicide in bipolar and schizophrenic individuals but we should not assume that most suicides are among the mentally ill. It might be wonderful if we could test in the schools and locate individuals who will bloom into schizophrenia or mania so that treatment can come well before the signalling event. Manic depression will be quite an issue as people with this disorder tend to resist proper medication ardently. They tend to love the high side of the disease.