Is there any merit to the idea that health workers can help people and their family with being prepared for the suicide?
I think we spend too much effort on avoidance without acknowledging that people come to a conclusion of ending their life for multiple reasons, and people aren't really falling for the prevention.
Did the underlying irreconcilable problem get solved? No? Okay imma head out.
Does the person have to be in pain or struggling with something? Intervention failed
Setting up cultural barriers doesn't prevent it, setting up religious mental barriers doesn't prevent it.
The crux of the idea is that suicide hurts those still living. Maybe there is room to prepare the living for that, instead of just being collateral damage in a failed or missed intervention opportunity.
My primary argument is that our culture is too one-dimensional on this issue and maybe shouldn’t just be prevent the suicide just because.
Does the above approach have merit? Why or why not?
(edit: just saw another poster who said people that attempt it and survive don't try it again 90% of the time. that somewhat influences my thoughts, but they still attempted)
Let's assume that the 90% statistic is right. That certainly seems to lessen the burden on families of suicidal people, but at what cost? This number doesn't tell us about the reason those people never attempted again.
We all hear about the gruesomeness of deaths by suicide and the impact on relationships with family and friends. It is very likely that the toll an unsuccessful attempt takes on someone combined with observing the attempt fail makes people reconsider suicide as a solution to their problems. It is not likely that this correlates with resolving their problems in another way. If the problems are hard enough to solve or to live with, the total burden on everyone involved could be much higher after an unsuccessful attempt than after a successful one.
Suicide prevention success should not be solely measured by suicide statistics, or by the mental health of family members. I think your idea is going in the right direction, which is to avoid thinking of suicide as the worst possible outcome, to consider the impact the worst living situations have compared to the cost of escaping them, and to potentially try to minimise both.
If you aren't familiar with the topic, I think you would find discussions around euthanasia interesting - a lot of it centers on when suicide is an acceptable individual choice.
Turned out to be classic American paranoia and I’ve really loosened that up from hanging out with Europeans of the generational wealthier variety. No care in the world!
I think we spend too much effort on avoidance without acknowledging that people come to a conclusion of ending their life for multiple reasons, and people aren't really falling for the prevention.
Did the underlying irreconcilable problem get solved? No? Okay imma head out.
Does the person have to be in pain or struggling with something? Intervention failed
Setting up cultural barriers doesn't prevent it, setting up religious mental barriers doesn't prevent it.
The crux of the idea is that suicide hurts those still living. Maybe there is room to prepare the living for that, instead of just being collateral damage in a failed or missed intervention opportunity.
My primary argument is that our culture is too one-dimensional on this issue and maybe shouldn’t just be prevent the suicide just because.
Does the above approach have merit? Why or why not?
(edit: just saw another poster who said people that attempt it and survive don't try it again 90% of the time. that somewhat influences my thoughts, but they still attempted)