It’s not a viral contagion, it’s a social contagion. The appropriate response for limiting the outbreak of “copycat suicides” is likewise social rather than medical.
Anyway, you weren’t talking about vaccines. You were talking about ending suicide prevention efforts as a means of improving the gene pool. That’s pretty a clear-cut case of eugenics in action.
I didn’t say end it. I said that it by itself may not get to the root of things. In my view it’s rather ineffectual without attempts to address the underlying causes of depression.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we as a society raised people who were robust enough safely contemplate a morbid but well intentioned lament.
Enough people may kill themselves simply from exposure to a captioned picture of a cartoon genie that we are seriously discussing best practices.
You are going to be exposed to a lot of contagion (emotionally compelling things) in the course of your life. You won’t have much control when or where you hear these things. Given this reality, we’d better learn to cope with it.
Suicide is a symptom that does not lead back to a single root cause. It is a multifaceted problem that is going to take change well beyond the scope of making sure my words don’t romanticize suicide.
There are no doubt environmental factors which contribute to suicide (e.g. cyclical poverty, discrimination, poor diet, poor communication, mental illness arising from the aforementioned circumstances) . There are also factors which appear to be linked to genetics (depression, bi-polar disorder, mania).
If I know that my child would likely be born a condition that’s likely to seriously hinder their quality of life. I might consider adopting, pursuing gene therapy, finding a donor for artificial insemination, etc. It’s one very tangible thing I can do to encourage the health of future generations.
No no no. Such a pragmatic approach makes you an inhuman monster. 
Just found out that a friend of mine about WIlliams’s age died from the same cause within 24 hours, damn…
I am aware of a large % of Jewish doctors were actively working on gene therapy with none other than maybe some wackado convert to Christian (non)Science opposing it. Judaism, even the most fervently orthodox has no problem even with abortion, even if it only causes an emotional risk, that puts a pretty non-christian/fundamentalist spin on their attitude to medical science.
I hate the term judeo-christian, it was invented by Christians seeking to further legitimize their big tent cultural hegemony in an America where Judaism or non-participation were the only options anyone had ever heard of.
There’s a lot to that.
One thing is - given that life is the ultimate asset we have, if a society allows it to be yielded in the face of hardship - thinking general famine etc rather than individual depression - then a population can ‘fold’ under pressure, and reach that point of inability to strive forward quicker than it otherwise would. That back feeds into societal behaviours - if you know your ultimate asset is not sacred to retain, then the hardship of waking up and working hard becomes more apparent, more useful a token of lassitude.
Not expressing my beliefs, but general thought.
At the end of the day, Robin Williams’ suicide is probably much more likely to cause someone else to commit suicide than any insensitive tweet that people wrote after the fact in order to come to terms with it. Many people who were depressed saw him as a symbol of hope, and may now be doubting the message in many of his films and in his life that happiness is possible. Should he have stayed alive for them or to validate his message? If his life was still unbearable despite support from friends, a famously positive outlook on life and professional help for many years, he does have a sort of freedom now in the absence of suffering.
I’m reminded of the movie Mar Adentro (The Sea Inside), where Ramón Sampedro argues that it’s up to him to decide whether his life is worth living: we may value what he achieved and point out those who benefited from his work and his presence, but he had no obligation towards us despite the fact that his life greatly affected those around him and his loss will harm those close to him. To a large extent, Robin Williams’ death may well be our loss rather than his, but unfortunately we’ll probably never know whether it was planned or just one occasion when the temptation to end it became too great.
None of this is denying that it was an inadvisable tweet, but if it was what he wanted rather than the result of a moment of weakness, I agree with the sentiment. We will miss him and of course we should make sure that people in his situation do see life as worth living and realize that others care for and need them, but I won’t insist that it was necessarily a mistake on his part.
But in the case of suicide contagion, I think it’s pretty reliable that the problem is temporary. Having, as I do, chronic depression (borderline personality disorder? dissociative identity disorder?) and having worked on crisis lines and having watched close family members die of terminal illnesses, I can tell you that my experience is that there is a big difference. I never once got a call on the crisis line from a person who was in a situation remotely similar to an agonizing terminal illness.
Even in Robin Williams’ case, friends of his have since said he was having money problems. So yes, he spent his whole life feeling bad a lot more than normal people feel bad, but its very plausible that even then he was solving a temporary problem. The cause of suicidal ideation may usually be chronic, but the cause of suicidal action is usually acute.
This is a myth. Individuals are healthy because they have genes that make them healthy in their environment. Species are healthy because they are diverse. If we go down the road of trying to control genes on the population level then we make ourselves more susceptible to extinction.
The people working hardest to address the root causes of depression are the people who are advising that tweets like this are not a good idea. They firmly believe that through a very simple education program - explaining to people what to do and what not to do - they can prevent some suicides. Unfortunately, when people are told that they can help prevent some suicides by making small changes to how they express themselves they apparently respond by going off on tangents or doing anything else to avoid the simple message.
If you want to get to the root cause of suicide, I think we should probably be talking about the fact that we live in a society where people, given the choice between:
choose the former. You want to know why people are depressed? Because this is reality.
Which scientific journal published these results? Or possibly you are a psychologist or psychiatrist who does research into suicide? Or maybe you are just a guy on the internet spitballing ideas out there that don’t seem to match the ideas of the people who do this kind of research?
If this is based on your own experiences with suicidal ideation and how you felt when celebrities killed themselves then I won’t diminish that. I really hate it when people pull out the [citation needed] but this whole project of minimizing the impact of the tweet (hey, maybe only a few people will kill themselves) feels like the anti-vax movement. We’ve got experts telling us how things are and we’ve got people on the internet saying that they feel differently. All we need is for Jenny McCarthy to come out in support of the tweet.
I have taken a crisis call from someone with a terminal illness, and it was the same situation - a permanent answer to a temporary problem. The caller had an prescription for morphine and every so often needed some support to not plunge it in and end what, at that moment, seemed hopeless. She called every so often to get shored up. Of course if she stopped calling we would never know if she died of natural causes or not, but having listened to her on one call, I concluded that the suicide out for terminal illness was just as much a desire to find a solution to something that temporarily (or periodically), seemed too much to bear. And then once the crisis passed, she could continue to battle on.
I had a teacher/family friend who recently did choose a suicide option for a Lou Gerig like disease. She had the suicide all planned out for end of 2013 but then kept finding another birthday, another anniversary, another milestone to reach toward. Just recently she did die and I assume that she did go the assisted suicide in a hospice route that she had planned all along, but I also think that having a plan for a way out gave her the courage to continue on with a life that was getting progressively harder to stay in.
Thanks for that perspective. Maybe my maxim of “ideation - chronic; action - acute” holds even in many cases with painful illnesses.
Having watched a couple of people go through the last few days of their lives with brain cancer and pancreatic cancer, I can honestly get on board with anyone saying that those few days were just not worth living, but of course no one knows when the last few days are coming.
Just a guy on the internet. I’m not denying that the tweet was ill-advised and could have unintended consequences, but it’s not like the idea of suicide being freedom has never occurred to suicidal people before. I’m not really addressing the tweet in any case, just the idea that some seem to be promoting that suicide is always of necessity wrong, and that life must be worth living. While we should do all we can to make it so that people have a better standard of life and that they are given every option to move away from suicide, I do respect his decision if it was a conscious decision that he made. I also understand that depression will be very problematic in this regard. I think with a number of issues like this, legal, safe and rare is probably a reasonable policy, whereby less stigma and an avenue for people to choose this without resorting to more damaging methods are given (and may actually end up reducing the incidences of suicide). A lot has already been done to de-stigmatize suicide such as hotlines that people can call, where nobody will be shocked or judge you if you feel suicidal. Depression is also a lot better known, so people can be brought back from suicidal thoughts a lot more than they could in the past using drugs and therapy. It is obviously an extreme, permanent and damaging decision in any situation, but ultimately I’d say it’s a choice that people have a right to make for themselves.
In this case it does not seem that hard work = pragmatic work. It should go without saying that we ought to self-regulate what we do and say to others. I say should, because in reality lots of people do and say what they want when they want. There is simply no avoiding it.
I don’t dispute that the tweet is having the effect of encouraging copy cat suicide. I’m saying you will never encourage enough people to self-regulate where the feared consequences will be mitigated. Bluntly put it’s not a sufficient solution.
“They firmly believe that through a very simple education program - explaining to people what to do and what not to do - they can prevent some suicides.”
Which scientific journal published the results suggesting this was the best possible solution? Or possibly you are a psychologist or psychiatrist who does research into suicide? Or maybe you are just a guy on the internet defending band-aids, but failing to address the conditions causing scraped knees?
You may have some citations demonstrating that this approach can reduce self harm. But you are yet to demonstrate that this does anything other treat a symptom of a much bigger problem.
Sorry for your loss, dobby.
Seriously, what is going on here? You don’t dispute that the tweet may have the effect of encouraging suicide. Apparently you don’t think that suicide prevention is a bad thing (even if you are open to the idea that it is a bad thing). Are you disputing the idea that sending out an email with some guidelines is too many resources to expend on possibly saving a few lives? Or is best possible solution the threshold that must be met to justify taking any action of any kind? Can a “best possible solution” be composed of both an approach that addresses the underlying problem and a low-hanging fruit-approach that tries to take low-cost actions to mitigate the problem?
If you managed to read everything I said in this thread and believe that I don’t think suicide is a symptom of a much bigger problem then we’ve obviously had a fantastic breakdown in communication. But when the symptom is death we often do attempt to treat the symptom and worry about the underlying problem later.
I honestly have no idea what we are talking about it. I think you agree on these facts:
So other than “Hey, maybe genetics plays a role in suicide,” is there anything more we are discussing here?
I do agree on points 1 and 2. Where we disagree is the value of an education campaign. I’m not convinced that raising awareness will ultimately yield more good than harm.
You cannot reasonably expect to insulate people prone to suicidal acts from emotionally compelling words/ideas. No amount of public awareness will ever yield the widespread self-regulation this would require.
If simple education programs like D.A.R.E. (which was shown to encourage drug use) are any indication you might even inadvertently encourage more people to make statements romanticizing suicide.
If a whimsical picture of a Genie is going to cause you to commit suicide, you were loosing your battle against depression a long time ago.
An education campaign although well intentioned, does not appear to be a plausible, practical, long-term solution to reducing instances of copycat suicide.
I think resources would be better spent finding a way to equip people with the means to cope appropriately with emotionally compelling ideas.
Thanks chgoliz,
I appreciate the humanity. We had not spoken in over ten years but it is still sad that I will now never get the chance.
May their memory be a blessing.
Alright, that seems like a stark departure from:
I’m just trying to get various points straight here. You seem to be saying:
(1) is a perfectly valid point that I already agreed with above when I said:
That is, you are proof positive that some people are not willing to listen to a message that says, “Could you please talk a little differently to try to save a life.”
(2) Is a bold theory that appears to come from your gut while the opposing point of view comes from the CDC and people who study suicidal behaviour. It also matches with my experience both as a suicidal person and as a person who has worked on crisis lines with suicidal people. And from the rest of this thread it seems to be supported by other people who have experienced suicidal ideation, who have known people who committed suicide, and who have worked with suicidal people. The fact that DARE didn’t work and abstinence-only education doesn’t work can’t be extrapolated to the idea that no education campaign ever works, or even to the idea that the majority don’t work.
(3) Fuck that. Honestly, this keeps coming up again and again. “Well, if they were that close to the edge then they were going to die anyway.” It’s fine that elderly people die in heatwaves and of the flu to, right? Certainly not worth putting in so much effort as to change the words we use to save a few lives, right? I mean, not if we’re only saving them for a couple of years?
(4) Unless you are actively against researching suicidal behaviour you are saying that the resources put towards typing some stuff up were badly spent. Aside from the information gathering part of the process, what resources were used?
Ugh. I’m running out of energy and will in regards to this thread. So this will likely be my last post.
I didn’t suggest that it wasn’t worth trying to save people. What I am suggesting (cold and calculating tho it may be) is that they were already lost at the point that they first became this severely hypersensitive to the thoughts and actions of others.
I don’t buy that they were otherwise “keeping it together”, that they weren’t just having a bad day. When they are this incredibly sensitive they are in dire need of more psychiatric care than what they can get from a support hotline, and a generally mindful/sensitive public.
Don’t mistake my position for some sort of libertarian rant on why I should be allowed to say whatever I want. I understand the dangerous impact my words can have, but I also understand that I cannot depend on the public at large to share that understanding and exercise self-control. Some people will say things emotionally jarring things, no matter what.
It’s true that I am speculating without citation that a public awareness campaign might actually have an effect counter to the desired effect, but it’s not an unreasonable assumption.
Robin William’s own daughter was driven off Twitter entirely from harassment this week. The world is filled with cruel people who enjoy the power their words can have. My premise that Trolls will be empowered is not really an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
Nor do I have have references to research which suggests a better approach to combating depression, but I don’t need a viable alternative to point out a glaring problem with the public awareness approach: It hinges on the consent/cooperation of a fractured and unreliable public.
One cannot rely on the public to act in a way that is in your best interest. A pragmatic approach to averting depression must focus on empowering individuals.
“But it might not work,” and “What if it backfires?” and “Is there a better alternative” are all good things to think about when looking for a solution to any problem. You’ve raised these things, but I don’t think you’ve added any credibility to the idea that it will not work, it will backfire or there is a better alternative.
Those two sentences appear to be a direct contradiction of one another.
And this is the point I already agreed with. The counter-point is that the resources devoted to this effort were exceedingly few.
The CDC paper is directed at medical professionals and meant to guide them in dealing with media outlets. I would think the academy would have the resources to do this properly, and I am annoyed at Huffington Post for their obsessive coverage of Williams’ death that didn’t seem to take these guidelines into account. Individuals making tweets to their 6 followers who know them in person are not the problem. Nor are trollies able to target vulnerable people since it’s impossible to figure out who the vulnerable people are.
Of course there the possibility of anything going viral. If any message from any individual has the possibility to spread to a wide audience then they can’t all possibly be stopped. But that’s not just one person, that’s a huge web of people. Even if not everyone, understands the message of suicide contagion, that web can possibly be stopped by people who do - like a population innoculated with a vaccine that isn’t 100% effective. Also, if major media outlets don’t report on the damaging viral messages because they understand contagion suicide, then their ability to spread is quite blunted.
All of this combines with the fact that fewer messages that encourage suicide means fewer copycat suicides. It’s not like if one tweet gets through the entire project is for nothing. It’s not like there are 7 people who will kill themselves if they see this tweet and who won’t otherwise. There are a large number of people who are at various stages of contemplating suicide who may react to one thing or another depending on the context they see it in and their frame of mind at the time. Some of them will find this tweet uplifting and others will kill themselves because they dropped their coffee. But this still reminds me of anti-vax. Some people who get vaccines will still get sick and some will have side effects, so what’s the point, right?
And even though twitter could allow a message that is everyone the CDC says it should not be to get a wide audience, but it can also distribute the message about being careful of suicide contagion at virtually no cost. Once again, this is a low-hanging-fruit issue.
I don’t think you have any understanding of suicide or suicidal thoughts. When you say, " the point that they first became this severely hypersensitive to the thoughts and actions of others," I don’t even know where to begin addressing that. You might as well being saying, “Are you still beating your wife?” The statement imports so many incorrect assumptions about why suicide contagion happens and what it is like to be depressed. I also feel that your attempt to be pragmatic - pointing out that public education can’t work - is hyperbolic. Public education campaigns are what drastically lowered drunk driving in the 1980’s. Education, generally speaking, is why we aren’t still hunter-gatherers.
