We recently received an email with guidelines for reporting suicide. The premise of the email was that reporting suicide can lead to an increase in suicides through copycat events, so it essentially should be avoided.

It is not something OLO really touches, although recently I was forced to think more deeply about it when listening to Radio National documentary Losing Erin http://www.abc.net.au/rn/360/stories/2009/2655822.htm about a youngish depressed woman who suicided in Tijuana following Philip Nitschke's advice. We have published Nitschke.

I thought about it again this morning when reading this Nine MSN report about a man suiciding over web cam in Chile http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/858828/man-hangs-himself-as-ex-watches-on-web/?rss=yes. What struck me particularly was the footnote at the end of the article suggesting anyone who was disturbed might contact Lifeline or SANE and providing telephone numbers. Is this genuine sensitivity, or the journalistic equivalent of crossed-fingers?

So I thought the question worth airing. Under what circumstances is it right to report suicides (or anything else detrimental that might lead to copy cats)? What ought the guiding principles to be in these circumstances? What role do people like Nitschke play? Or organisations like Nine, or OLO? Is suicide always or ever wrong, or can it be a basic human right?

I have experienced the effects of suicide in family & friends. Having sort of gotten a whiff afterwards as to why these people have reached that point, it is plainly obvious that they do it because of other people. Apart of course, those with debilitating physical illness but that is understandable.
How many times do we hear "if only we had known he/she was so distressed & resort to that tragic alternative". Well, I say if only we would listen ! In most cases the blame lies fair & square with those left behind. The sad part is that it usually involves decent & caring people who feel let down & betrayed by society & usually they thought right.

Wow, Graham, that's a whole lot of opinions you are canvassing for so I shan't seek to address all of them in one post, but will concentrate rather on what prompted the post: the directive that suicide should not be reported.

As you and many OLO posters will be aware, I did a lot of work in this field and gained the rather dubious qualification of "Suicide Interventionist" back around 2000.

This is also now my 4th year out of the country in China so I am somewhat out of the loop on what has been happening since I left.

But I am amazed at this turn-around in opinion since the time I w
ent around publiclly speaking out about suicide. The huge move to open up the dialoge about suicide depended on getting the subject acknowledged rather than swept under the carpet.

Giving coverage to suicide was seen as a necessary tool for anchoring it firmly in the public consciousness through releasing numbers, raising awareness through de-mystifying the subject and causing the kind of concern which led to so many initiatives which especially helped young people.

I gave it a lot of thought but I still tend to stick to my original guns, I think.

Violent crime is increasingly being reported in more and more graphic ways. Violent movies have spawned a revolution in the field of FX as film-makers seek ever more " realistic" ways to depict pain, suffering, torture and gratuitous mutilation and terror.

But any calls for curtailment of this trend run slap bang into the denial of liberties and censorship debates. People who support such curtailment regularly bring out the "copy-cat" theory and are just as regularly shouted down.

I wonder if this issue will attract any such heated exchanges? Or has the return to pretending that if we ignore it it will just go away already begun its insidious work?

Secularism can do nothing but result in many more suicides. You would think here in Australia where our living standards have never been higher that suicide would be on the decline. The opposite has taken place as teenagers have been encouraged to experiment with drugs, sex and alcohol. Our morally bereft social engineers will wake up one day to the fact that the religion of me (secularism) leads to death spiritually, by abortion and by suicide. The problem will not improve because blinded secularist will never ask the right questions.

“..The opposite has taken place as teenagers have been encouraged to experiment with drugs, sex and alcohol. Our morally bereft social engineers will wake up one day to the fact that the religion of me (secularism) leads to death spiritually, by abortion and by suicide. The problem will not improve because blinded secularist will never ask the right questions.”

Woah. I believe that is too much of a leap, teenagers experimenting with drugs, alcohol and sex is not attempted suicide. Isn’t it more an overabundance of fun that can lead to some tragic accidents because mostly they think they are immortal?

What’s the right question Runner?

I think we have to talk about everything and loudly. Information is power? Knowledge gets you kicked out of gardens so some people don’t like it?

Dear Graham,

One of my best friends committed suicide.
She was young, extremely outgoing by nature,
and seemed to have a rich and full life.
Her death came as a shock to everyone.
No one knew the depths of her despair.
And all of us felt, "If only..."

I agree with another poster who said - the more
we talk about things - the more open we are in
discussing all subjects - including difficult
ones like death - the less we shy away from them -
the better informed we and future generations will
be - and more importantly - the more approachable
we are regarding these matters - perhaps we'll be
able to provide the help that is needed before it
becomes too late.