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.

13 of 498 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe in a different country by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Maybe in a different country by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a big difference between promoting gun safety at home, and putting it into law. The latter comes with regular, mandatory police inspections of gun owners' homes, to ensure guns are kept according to the rules. This is what we have in the Netherlands, where it's hard to get a gun license in the first place. Now I am not against such rules and inspections personally, but I can see how "freedom loving" gun owners in the US would object to that. However, the few of such gun owners that I know do voluntarily practise and advocate safe gun ownership, especially around kids.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Maybe in a different country by Charcharodon · · Score: 5, Informative
      However every single day there is at least one innocent child in this county who is shot as a direct result of an irresponsible owner.

      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.

    3. Re:Maybe in a different country by dwillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Great points, and as demonstrated in Australia after their firearm ban and confiscation, removing firearms does not remove suicides. After the ban yes firearm suicides nearly vanished. But the overall suicide rate did not drop. In fact it spiked significantly the two years immediately following but then returned to the exact same level and gradual downward trend it had been running at in the years prior to the ban. But now suicide by firearm was a fraction of the occurrence that it had been before the ban and confiscation of most handguns and many rifles.

      Guns do not cause suicide. 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.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    4. Re:Maybe in a different country by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    5. Re: Maybe in a different country by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is largely a cultural thing as well. If you look at a ranking of countries by suicide rate, no country in the top 10 are guns easily and legally acquired. Some, like Japan and South Korea, gun ownership is nearly impossible. But countries like the U.S. and Switzerland, having the highest gun ownership, rank 30 and 44 respectively.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    6. Re:Maybe in a different country by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't need a gun at your nightstand, it's never going to be a matter of seconds that saves you.

      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
    7. Re:Maybe in a different country by tibit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As someone who has attempted suicide and just barely made it, I think that the so-called mental health experts are a bit stuck up in seeing things from nobody's perspective but theirs. The freedom to lead your way the way you choose to must include ending your own life at any time of your choosing. It is true that quite often people who attempted suicide are happy with making it out alive, and being able to live their lives. I certainly am!! On the other hand, the thought that some "expert" who is not in my frame of mind would have the ability to, essentially, take over my ability to take my life - is downright scary. Just because I'm happy with the life I have now doesn't mean that I'd be happy about someone preventing me from attempting to take my life when I did so. Two decades later, I'd consider it a gross invasion of privacy, and a horrific, slippery slope takeover of basic human liberty.

      There is a very fine line between truly helping someone, and "helping" someone by - as you unashamedly admit - putting someone else's feelings over your own. Yes, as a society we have an obligation to give as much help as we can, but that help IMHO should not extend to overriding the decision of someone who wishes to take their life away. I find it, actually, completely incomprehensible that people think that preservation of human life over all else should be forced down everyone's throat. I also find it not all that clear that suicidal thoughts should be treated like a malaise in all cases. My attempt at my own life made me into a person that I am now, and who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that I'd be better off not having tried it? It's quite possible the worst case of "what if" imaginable, because you're not merely hypothesizing, you intend to take action.

      The implication that all people with suicidal thoughts have a "very real chance" of taking down someone else is just an icing on the cake. You're nuts. I'm not a murderer, and can't imagine how attempting to take my own life would have ever made me take the life of someone else while doing so - other than indirectly, say by someone close to me dying of a stress-induced heart attack. I can't imagine that any sort of a majority, or even a significant minority of people who attempt a suicide are murderers and would take down others with them - not unless they were murderers to begin with, and suicial thoughts were just an enabler, like alcohol or drugs would be for others.

      TL;DR: You're nuts, you really are.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    8. Re:Maybe in a different country by quenda · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  2. We've redefined success! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:We've redefined success! by javilon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So it is forbidden to make a decision about your life. WTF?

      I am allowed to marry the wrong person and ruin my life at the drop of a hat. I am allowed to have kids where I may not be qualified to provide a decent life. I am allowed to sign a mortgage that I know I can't pay. I am allowed to try to climb the K7 if I am 70 years old, wich is very close to suicide.

      But I am not allowed to take my own life.

      Bollocks.

      --


      When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
  3. Treating symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Or we could help people so that they dont try. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.