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.
If parents leave guns in a locked safe, a teenage son cannot shoot himself if he suddenly decides life is hopeless.
People have been proudly campaigning for irresponsible gun ownership in the US for a very, very, long time. Suggesting things like locking up guns - even in the gun owner's home - will be quickly shot down by people claiming you are impeding on their constitutional right to overthrow the government.
I really, really, wish I was exaggerating or kidding on this one.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Since we've made remarkably limited advances in the treatment of patients who think that the world is worth escaping; we've decided to just start blocking the exits. On the plus side, we have some emotionally salient anecdotes, of the sort that will probably cheer you right up unless you are one of those pesky people we can't really treat!
"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...
Suicide is a symptom of mental illness. Taking away the possibility to commit suicide doesn't solve the underlying cause.
As someone who suffers from medical depression I feel pretty strongly about this subject, at least as strongly as I can allow myself to feel.
It may sound paradoxical but having the option to commit suicide was one of the things that helped me to finally seek treatment. Before I approached counseling I decided on method and location for a possible suicide. Had that option not been available to me I might not have been able to push through.
Had there been a policy in place to put people with depression on a 24/7 watch-list to prevent suicide the I would have probably gone for the suicide option first.
When the subject of suicide comes up I often see people claiming that suicide is the "easy" way out. What they don't seem to realize is that more importantly it is a way out.
Some people support assisted suicide for non-treatable painful diseases. Typically autoimmune disorders or certain forms of cancer where the body attacks itself. They have seen how much victims of those diseases have to suffer.
It is much harder to see how much you suffer when the mind attacks itself. People think that therapy cures those problems. It doesn't. Bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and depression are permanent. You can only learn how to endure it or acquire the discipline to keep it back.
To me the depression is much like one would expect from alcoholism. I function, but I can not allow myself to think freely. I have to keep my mind busy in complex projects and not let it wander off. Some relatives seem to have a hard time understanding that I will never want to talk nostalgia with them, ever.
Preventing suicide kind of lacks relevance since the person my mind was before died with the depression anyway.
Taking away to option of suicide doesn't solve anything of that. It only removes the inconvenience of having to deal with a body.
Trying to address the issue of suicide by taking away the means of killing yourself is probably entirely the wrong way to go about it. People who are serious about suicide will always find a way, for starters, and unless something substantial is done to address the mental suffering that drives a person to suicide, all you achieve is to prolong the suffering. It is the kind of boneheaded, incompetent idiocy that you get from politicians, when their only goal is to get re-elected.
I think a much better approach would be
1) Give people the right to suicide and the help to do so safely, if that is the right word. This will show people who are suicidal, that you respect them, something is all too often not the case. I think respect is crucial, because if you see suicide as the only way out, you don't want to seek help if you fear that this way out will be taken away; so you have to know that you can go ahead, if you really want to.
2) Make that right dependent on them having been through good quality advice and assessment. Many people only want kill themselves because they can see no other way - they can often be helped to find a better way out.
There is still too much religiously motivated prudishness towards death - life does not belong to some 'God', it belongs to the individual and it is ultimately the responsibility of the individual what they want to do. It is IMO deeply unethical to force life on somebody who really doesn't want it.
it seems to me that making treatment free (it's expensive!) and encouraging people to get help rather than shaming them for feeling badly would be a better way to go.
society doesn't want spend money to help the mentally ill which ironically bites them in the ass because about 1/3 of the homeless have a form of (untreated) mental illnesses which is why they are homeless. it costs more to have social programs for the homeless than it does to actually help them or even give them homes! i'm sure it would cost much less if we had free treatment to prevent them from becoming homeless in the first place.
wake up, society!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I can only imagine the costs of changing every last bridge, high area, train track, city sidewalk, etc. into hampster style fenced off tunnels to be, at a minimum, in the hundreds of billions of US dollars (world costs in the tens of trillions) while leaving hundreds of millions of homes in the US alone still chock full of methods to commit suicide anyway. Not to mention natural areas - are we going to fence off every cliff within a few miles of a homestead too?
Here's a thought that's way out there; let's spend those billions on research and development of new medication and treatments instead - that would likely have a far bigger impact. Sadly it's just poorly thought through emotional click bait instead of a sane approach to solving a serious problem. It's as if the rationality of humans is as well evolved as our lower spines.
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.
"People who are serious about suicide will always find a way"
No You don't. At some point in my teenage life I came to that dark place. But since the easy method was removed from my reach, I did not go for other method. the moment *passed*. In fact suicide is not always associated with a mental illness. I see many poster here pretend that, but it is not. Suicide is a symptom that somebody feels is in a situation where living further is more painful than dying. It CAN be a symptom of mental illness but also simply a symptom of intense physical pain or a symptom of plain stupid teenage angst. And for the last group, removing the easy means can simply make the person force to have more time to think.And thus prevent suicide. And then post about it on slashdot 25 years later.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Nothing but more theory and anecdote.
"You can reduce the rate of suicide in the United States ... if fewer people had guns in their homes ..."
Total nonsense. The number of households with firearms has been on a multi-decade downward trend:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
Meanwhile, the suicide rate per 100k people has been quite stable at 10-15 per 100k over the last 60 years:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/...
So where's the evidence that fewer gun-owning households means a lower suicide rate?
The ONLY consistently documented relationship between firearms and suicide is this:
"Some methods have a case fatality rate as low as 1 or 2 percent ... with a gun, it's closer to 85 or 90 percent."
True and I'm sure that in their so-called "study", the 10-15% of people who survived a self-inflicted gunshot wound regret it and claim it was an impulsive act, but that's hardly "proof" that access to firearms was a causal factor in suicide attempts.
This also raises the important question of how many people really want to die and how many are just desperate for attention. The "cry for help" suicide is a well known and documented fact. If you slice your wrists perpendicular to the length of the arm, you're either incompetent or you don't really want to commit suicide. Fire a 12 gauge shotgun in your mouth and there's zero doubt that you're genuinely trying to kill yourself.
Note also that the USA is #30 worldwide in suicide rate, far behind many countries with strict gun control laws. Take Japan for example with a rate of 20.7/100k.
This is just a bunch of leftist academics trying to further the gun control agenda without real evidence. Gun control groups like Michael Bloomberg's astroturf "Everytown" are actually pushing laws requiring that all firearms in private homes be locked up ... where they will be useless for defense. And imagine police getting search warrants and breaking down your door because someone saw a gun on your nightstand? Insanity..
Just one point: Talking or "joking" about committing suicide are high risk factors. It may be "attention seeking" as well, but in many cases, suicidal people feel socially isolated and genuinely need attention.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere