Slashdot Mirror
Mental Health Experts Seek To Block the Paths To Suicide
HughPickens.com writes: Experts and laymen have long assumed that people who died by suicide will ultimately do it even if temporarily deterred. Now Celia Watson Seupel reports at the NY Times that a growing body of evidence challenges this view, with many experts calling for a reconsideration of suicide-prevention strategies to stress "means restriction." Instead of treating individual risk, means restriction entails modifying the environment by removing the means by which people usually die by suicide. The world cannot be made suicide-proof, of course. But, these researchers argue, if the walkway over a bridge is fenced off, a struggling college freshman cannot throw herself over the side. If parents leave guns in a locked safe, a teenage son cannot shoot himself if he suddenly decides life is hopeless.
Reducing the availability of highly lethal and commonly used suicide methods has been associated with declines in suicide rates of as much as 30%–50% in other countries (PDF). According to Cathy Barber, people trying to die by suicide tend to choose not the most effective method, but the one most at hand. Some methods have a case fatality rate as low as 1 or 2 percent," says Barber. "With a gun, it's closer to 85 or 90 percent. So it makes a difference what you're reaching for in these low-planned or unplanned suicide attempts." Ken Baldwin, who jumped from the Golden Gate Bridge in 1985 and lived, told reporters that he knew as soon as he had jumped that he had made a terrible mistake. "From the instant I saw my hand leave the railing, I knew I wanted to live. I was terrified out of my skull." Baldwin was lucky to survive the 220 foot plunge into frigid waters. Ms. Barber tells another story: On a friend's very first day as an emergency room physician, a patient was wheeled in, a young man who had shot himself in a suicide attempt. "He was begging the doctors to save him," she says. But they could not.
Reducing the availability of highly lethal and commonly used suicide methods has been associated with declines in suicide rates of as much as 30%–50% in other countries (PDF). According to Cathy Barber, people trying to die by suicide tend to choose not the most effective method, but the one most at hand. Some methods have a case fatality rate as low as 1 or 2 percent," says Barber. "With a gun, it's closer to 85 or 90 percent. So it makes a difference what you're reaching for in these low-planned or unplanned suicide attempts." Ken Baldwin, who jumped from the Golden Gate Bridge in 1985 and lived, told reporters that he knew as soon as he had jumped that he had made a terrible mistake. "From the instant I saw my hand leave the railing, I knew I wanted to live. I was terrified out of my skull." Baldwin was lucky to survive the 220 foot plunge into frigid waters. Ms. Barber tells another story: On a friend's very first day as an emergency room physician, a patient was wheeled in, a young man who had shot himself in a suicide attempt. "He was begging the doctors to save him," she says. But they could not.
"Suicide does not end the chances of life getting worse". Well yes, it rather does.
While it's a nice sentiment, it's something to which I would reply: "Please let me be the judge of that".
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Who hasn't had an urge to throw himself of a bridge once upon a time?
Without actually having statistics to back me up, I'm guessing most people. Certainly not me.
Some statistics I found from a Google search suggests about 3/4 of people never have: https://www.thecalmzone.net/20.... Some Korean statistics go as high as 35%. I never saw higher without breaking it down into specialised at-risk populations (war veterens, LGBT people).
I'm honestly shocked that you think it's normal. Clearly it's not rare. 25% isn't low. But it's nowhere near universal.
That statement is about worthless until you define what a "child" is. For a long time the gun haters like to quote statistics that defined a child as someone under 21 and as high as 24, and in their numbers. The also included "children" who were criminals that were shot by either the police or citizens defending themselves.
As it is far fewer actual children, as in those under the age of 14. A child as someone that cannot be put in prison as an adult.
So if defining a child as someone from 0 to 14 years of age
Firearm homicide (murder) of those under 14 was around 230
Firearm accidents barely made it onto the chart I was looking at with 22 unintentional firearm deaths for the 10-14 year old category. It was the only place it was in the top ten causes of death for any age group all the way up to the 65+ category.
vs.
1170 for being run over by cars
708 for drowning
1182 unintentional suffocation
408 being murdered by a parent/family member
58 dying from exposure (cold)
228 from burning to death
69 accidental death from beatings
116 bicycle accidents
Source 2012 statistics form the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. in 2012.
Firearm deaths are hardly the "low hanging" fruit on things killing children in the US, and it hardly happens "every single day" Hence why most "gun nuts" get more than a little agitated when it is used as a reason to take away their rights.
Firearm deaths and suicides do not start kicking in as a large result of death until the ages 15-24, but cars and alcohol/drug over dose kill more people by a factor of 3-5 times as many of all adults.
An amazing statistic in the USA is that females have significantly more suicide attempts, while males have significantly more "successful" suicides. And that's due to the availability of guns, which provide an easy way to kill yourself with a high success rate.
An anecdote from the Golden Gate Bridge: A man was spotted on the bridge in some rather agitated state, so the police was called, and the got him. It turned out he had decided to kill himself by jumping off the left side of the Golden Gate Bridge. (Un)fortunately he found himself on the right side. Now there is absolutely no difference between jumping from the left or the right side, but he had decided to kill himself by jumping from the left side. (Un)fortunately there were six lanes of traffic between the right and the left side, and he didn't dare running across the traffic for fear of getting killed, which was actually quite reasonable.
A few years ago, when there was a statistically small number of suicides at Foxconn, the company put up suicide nets which would catch and save people jumping from the roof, and more likely prevent them from jumping in the first place (because these people wanted to die, not look like idiots caught in a net). That gave a course a lot of ammunition to the idiots among the Foxconn haters and Apple haters, but it actually worked. Take a simple way of killing yourself away, and suicide rates drop.
It's long known that the majority of suicides are not done for any rational reason, but because of some mental disturbance. The slightest obstacle in the way of killing themselves can save them.
How is it irresponsible? If a teenage boy wants to shoot himself, give him a gun!
If you're old enough to type, and you really have to ask that question, you simply don't have the level of empathy that's required to understand the answer.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You do realize that when you make a statement like that, it takes only a single counterexample to prove you wrong?
Like this: The mother tells 7 Action News she "didn't have time to get scared." When she heard the door to her home on Woodrow Wilson being kicked in, she immediately warned the three teenage intruders and then opened fire.
Or this: "Apparently the homeowner has been the victim of burglary recently so he was on alert, he was on edge, and as soon as he heard glass breaking he armed himself to protect himself and his 11-year-old child who was in the home."
Or this: "Police said Henry broke into the house and began to attack Moreno until her daughter, Jayda Milsap, 11, shot Henry twice with a handgun." Now there's a story about kids and guns you probably didn't see on the news. If this mom had kept her gun locked so her daughter couldn't get to it, they both might be dead now.
So I'm sorry to inform you of this, but when it comes to violent crime the world does not work the way you think that it does. When an armed person is suddenly and without prior warning in your home, you are in a combat situation. And in a combat situation, seconds matter.
Whether the risk of being prepared for such a situation does or does not outweigh the risks of having an unlocked gun around depends on your risk of home invasion, who lives in the house, who visits the house, and so on. A universal assessment is impossible. But in making the choice you need to be aware that there is a tremendous selection bias in the stories that are covered in the media: defensive firearms use does not receive nearly the coverage that the accidental shooting of a kid does, but is orders of magnitude more common.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
in Australia after their firearm ban and confiscation, removing firearms does not remove suicides.
There was no "firearm" ban, but a restriction and buyback of rapid-fire weapons. Of course many people used the money to buy new legal weapons.
A bolt-action rifle or standard shotgun is not so good for massacres, but perfectly effective for hunting or suicide. There is no reason to expect a decline.
those determined to exit this sphere of existence will find a way to do so.
Ok, too hard to RTFA, but at least RTFS. It is not about those who are sufficiently determined to find a way.
" They are a convenient method when available, but if not available those determined to exit this sphere of existence will find a way to do so."
You didn't read the article. What they are saying is that there is clear evidence that a lot of people that presently kill themselves with a readily available means, would not do it if that means required a lot more effort. Lots of people kill themselves on terrible impulse, particularly young people that are having trouble coping with there emotions due to simple biochemical forces. Those types of suicide would be reduced IF it was harder to act on that impulse. That is 100% clear.
For people that are clinically depressed the story is a different matter. For those people simple reducing the means may not help so much (although I doubt it would hurt and might save some percentage).
I don't know enough about all the facts in Australia to understand the stats you mention (you don't give a source so I can't evaluate it). This article does mention studies which indicate the opposite of what you are saying. We'd need to see all the studies together to review them to see which if any are more meaningful. We'd also need to consider any biases those sources may have...
Peace, or Not?