“Asking about suicidal feelings cannot ‘put the idea into a caller’s head.'” If you’ve ever worked in a listening organisation that will openly talk about suicidal feelings, like a branch of Samaritans or a university Nightline, you’re likely to have heard this said. In virtually every training group to which talking about suicide is first mentioned, a trainee will ask “But if they’re not actively suicidal, might mentioning it give them it as an idea?” And the answer is no.
This is an important part of the work of these – and similar – organisations. While their manifesto may already state that they are there to talk about whatever feelings are on the mind of their caller, it’s still seen as necessary, sometimes, to remind the caller that yes, it’s really okay to talk about anything at all… even about ending their own life. Showing that it’s okay can open the door to really exploring the caller’s feelings and can make all the difference to somebody in a state of suicidal despair.
What I’d like to share with you is the evolution of a certain subset thoughts about suicide.
Talking About Suicide – A Revelation
(or How I Proved Myself Wrong Twice But Still Got The Right Answer)
Up to as recently as five or six years ago I was of the opinion that certain anti-suicide measures were pointless. I’m talking about building anti-suicide fences on bridges (like the Memorial Bridge in Maine), the installation of platform-edge doors on London’s Jubilee Line (mentioned in this article and shown in this video), and the restriction of the number of analgesics like paracetamol and aspirin that can be bought in one transaction, since 1998. I could not understand that this could possibly work. Suicide is almost invariably a pre-meditated act, and so access is removed to one means of doing away with oneself, you’ll simply use another – and there’s no shortage of ways to take your life.
Then, one day, I discovered that it doesn’t necessarily work like that.
Anti-suicide fences can be statistically proven to reduce not only the frequency of suicides at the site at which they are installed, but throughout the region – if suicide were, as I had believed, unaffected by availability of any one particular means of committing the act – then I would anticipate that a comparable, perhaps only slightly fewer, number of suicides would take place. Switching coal gas to natural gas in Britain in the 1960s was linked to a reduction in suicides on the whole (Kreitman, 1976), and only a smaller increase in suicide rates by other means. Similar studies in the US have shown that reducing the availability of firearms reduces suicide rates more than would be expected if the “saved” would simply switch to a different method.
So it turned out I was wrong. Reducing the availability of means of suicide really can have an impact on suicide rates, as if suicide really were a spontaneous thing (“I’m feeling so low… I could just – hey, look, a rope just hanging there; that’s convenient – well, go on then…”). But those who commit suicide often seem to have planned the act for some time before. Some have been known to have repeatedly visited what would eventually become the site of their death for months or even years before eventually taking their lives. Those who throw themselves under trains sometimes keep visiting their station of choice – unnoticed by staff as they mingle in with the commuter crowd – in order to determine where trains travel the fastest and which trains don’t stop at all. This fact has since been used to provide training to station staff in spotting these people in advance – another suicide prevention strategy.
What does this mean for talking to callers about suicide? When I learnt about these kinds of studies, I started to question what I “knew.” After all, if it’s true that passing a particularly high bridge can be sufficient to push a suicidally depressed person over the edge, so to speak, how could I possibly argue that it wasn’t the case that encouraging that same person to talk about their suicidal feelings would have the same effect. After all, aren’t both the same thing: making suicide seem like an acceptable option by making it more approachable – physically, in the case of the bridge, and more mentally paletable in the case of a caring ear who does not disapprove of your right to terminate your own life. This caused me a significant amount of cognitive dissonance (thanks, Changing Minds!) and I had to put a hold on my volunteer work in this area while I resolved it. As I put it at the time, I had “lost my faith” in the process I promoted.
And that could have been the end of the story. But I’m not a fan of unanswered questions in my mind, and I put a great deal of thought into suicide prevention and into talking about suicide.
Eventually I was able to resolve it. For a while, this resolution was simply based on “what felt right”: I came to the conclusion that seeing a bridge and talking about suicidal thoughts and feeling are actually quite distinct: the former is about the means to perform the action, whereas the latter is about the space to express the feeling. This was enough to put me back on track and, ultimately, make me far more comfortable. Later, I came across psychological studies that backed up that belief, like those referenced by the impressively-titled Scientific Foundations of Cognitive Theory and Therapy of Depression, by David A. Clak, Aaron Beck, and Brad A. Alford.
But for a while there, I wondered.
Further Reading
If I haven’t made you do so already, take a look at chapter 4 of Influence: Science and Practice, by Robert B. Cialdini, which I reviewed some time ago. I’m currently reading The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, by Malcolm Gladwell. Both of these books go into great deal about social proof and contagion and how what happens around us can have a huge effect on how we behave as a society, even leading to streaks of suicide or violent crime. For serious psychology in an easy-to-read and enjoyable format, I thoroughly recommend the Changing Minds website. And if you’re still interested, follow some of my links, above – many of them, combined with a little Google-fu or Wikipedia-surfing, are great starting points for further research.
Your initial fears about openly discussing suicide are very common and probably the most prevelent view.
An analogy i often use in training volunteers is to imagine having cancer and going to a doctor who wouldnt mention the subject!
This analogy is also thought provoking when thinking about suicide prevention measures.Imagine he pain of that cancer was unbearable and your doctor ignored your pain and concentrated only on preventing your death.
Railings at bridges etc are noble ideas but do nothing to lessen an individuals suffering.
Not talking about suicide and focusing on the act of suicide as the problem is a subtle slieght of hand that relects our own discomfort with the subject and make us act like as a society like the above doctor
Thanks for your thoughts, Paul.
I didn’t actually have any inital fears about openly discussing suicide! I fully embraced the philosophy of the training I was given and realised that it was correct.
The only time I had a problem with it was during the period after I’d discovered that the frequency of suicides can be influenced by the availability of the means, but before I came to the conclusion that discussion of suicide can not be considered to be the same thing. My “loss of faith” period as discussed above.
You’re absolutely right though, of course, to say that suffering is not reduced by the removal of a means of suicide – except to say that for many death can come as a relief to suffering. Talking through suicidal feelings, however, can provide a source of relief, as can feeling supported and “not alone” at your darkest times. That’s what these helplines have realised, and that’s what their service is all about.
Thanks again for commenting.
I think the key difference between a counsellor mentioning suicide and passing a high bridge isn’t a difference between emotional and physical enabling of suicide: it’s that a counsellor can actually have some positive effect.
A counsellor can ask a suicidal person why they’re considering suicide, and attempt to convince the counsellee that killing themselves isn’t their only option. A bridge can’t do that: it just panders to their blinkered, suicidal desires.
A bridge is like a counsellor saying ‘go on, you may as well; killing yourself is easier than you think!’ I fear that might put the idea into the caller’s head, or make the idea seem more acceptable…
Nicely put, Statto.
Yeah! Fucking pandering bridges! It’s their fault! They should all go back where they came from if you want my opinion.
Hey! I’m a quarter bridge on my mother’s side. I find that offensive.
I find you being a quarter bridge offensive too! Bloody bridges! They’ve all got AIDs! Bridge AIDs!! It’s the worst kind! They knew the risks!!
Speaking as someone who has depression and who has in the past had suicidal thoughts my feelings are as follows:
Talking about if someone has suicidal thoughts doesn’t give them thoughts and is something I have been asked quite often over the last few years with the plus side being I have much less suicidal thoughts now than I did back in 2005.
As a general rule the events leading to someones depressive illness are the main cause of suicidal thoughts (least in my case as many factors in 2005 led to me attempting self harm). As the events of 2005 were the main cause of my illness that may explain why I’ve not tried killing myself lately. It doesn’t however explain why I still continuously feel tired which was the first symptom I had
Hope that helps anyway
Hi Dan
This could be turned into a magazine article or forum discussion. How about it?
James
I like what you’re saying, James. I’ll have a word with the magazine editor I suspect you’re referring to.