Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: what we aren't talking about is killing us

over one million people worldwide commit suicide each year. suicide rates have increased by about 60% in the last fifty years. in the united states, deaths by suicide outnumber those by homicide by approximately 2 to 1 and in canada, by 6 to 1. worldwide, suicide ranks within the top ten causes of death and yet the information available on it has to be sought out. why is that?

i was reminded of this in the last week because i saw a story that dealt with suicide on the cbc. they were talking about an "epidemic" of suicides, particularly among teenagers and young adults on a reserve in northern ontario. it's a tragic situation, but what struck me as truly sad was that, in order to get any coverage on the media, suicides do have to be "epidemic", or "mass", or something out of the ordinary. the sad case of the individual who takes their own life out of desperation or fear is erased from public consciousness and, as a result, the need for resources to help prevent other suicides falls from the public view. what's worse is that it allows myths about suicide to be perpetuated, because so much of our understanding of the subject becomes hearsay.

the idea itself that talking about suicide will actually drive someone to commit it is, to my mind, something made up by people who wanted an excuse to avoid an uncomfortable conversation. there is no evidence to suggest that talking to people about suicide does anything to encourage them. in fact, it may allow them the chance to talk about their suicidal thoughts rather than acting on them. but with something as heavily stigmatised in religion and in culture as suicide, people are reluctant to bring up the subject.

there is also the old chestnut that people who threaten to kill themselves or who talk about killing themselves aren't going to do so. possibly 80% of those who later commit or attempt suicide give some indication, which would make talking about it in advance the most likely indicator of suicidal intentions. keep that in mind the next time you think someone is being melodramatic.

when suicide does get attention, it's often as an epidemic among young people. suicide does rank higher as a cause of death among young people, but that's largely because they're unlikely to die of other things such as heart attacks and cancer. statistically, in canada at least, the largest number of suicides are committed by people in their forties and fifties, which flies in the face of the idea that suicide is a phenomenon of youthful rashness [or elderly melancholy, for that matter]. those who are supposedly the most stable in their lives are actually at the highest risk. how come no one ever talks about them?

the rush to dismiss or ignore facts about suicide borders on the obsessive and points to a profound state of denial that there is a serious and growing problem. and as a result, the problem grows ever worse. the one thing that never seems to be discussed is that the best thing one can do is be vigilant about those close by and watch for signs that something may be wrong. we can theorise that those who commit suicide are selfish or weak, that they want attention, that they are beyond help or that they are damned, but what remains clear is that none of those ideas are making things any better. to borrow a slogan from a similarly stigmatised killer, silence equals death.

i was impressed by metanoia's page on suicide. lots of links for people in different situations.

Comments

Biba said…
Slovenia is one of the countries with the highest suicide rate in Europe. And that's just scary considering that our population is only about 2 million.
flora_mundi said…
That is kind of shocking, something I wouldn't have guessed.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…