I've been thinking about this subject and i think there are a couple of major issues.

Firstly, there is the potential for copy-catting. I don't know how large that is, but I'm sure it must exist. The question is then "would they have done it anyway" and as others have pointed out, anyone who is likely to copy-cat must have underlying problems.

Secondly, and moderating the first point is that some people may seek help if they read of the impacts on those left behind. Once again, I don't know numbers, but I'm sure those people must exist.

Thirdly, and I think most importantly, by not properly reporting such deaths, we may be masking structural social problems that are creating grave distress. For example, father's rights groups have been claiming that the rate of suicide among clients of the CSA is very high. It is difficult to know whether this is accurate, since the CSA no longer publishes the data and claims not to collect it. Surely, if a government agency is creating the conditions for some to suicide rather than try to deal with them we need to know about it? If media highlight the issues, it may force a more open culture of disclosure. Analysis of the official suicide data has revealed other groups, such as young rural men, who are at increased risk and has lead to intervention programs that have been of limited but real benefit.

In the end, as always, I'm in favour of open media and full and frank disclosure of all the information. Any other course leads inevitably to secretive elites leading us by the nose.

Antiseptic, You make some valid points.
I guess it depends on the demographic you're looking at and the motivation.
I can't comment on the CSA figures.
The figures I've read from the states indicate a disturbing trend towards increasingly more lethal incidents with adolescents i.e. Columbine high etc.

There seems to be a partial relationship with the salaciousness of the reporting. Not necessarily the copy cat syndrome more like out spectacular(ing) the last incident...my rage cry of exasperation is deserves more attention.

Other factors include availability to automatic weapons and greater numbers of people and increases in isolation and perceived relative deprivation.

There are many other proven causation links. Not least public lack of sensitivity/understanding to surrounding issues like mental illness depression and their ability to differentiate between the two. Pack mentality, cyber bulling etc.

In reality the causation factors tend to be multiple and cumulative rather than singular...A little from column 'a' and a little from column 'b', 'c', 'd' and so on.

Therefore it is often difficult to pick the trigger (it may be a relatively minor event). e.g. the recent suicide of the 13 yo from cyber bullying from another girl's mum . The mum's status undoubted increased the pressure over the background bullying etc that the girl was experiencing.

I often found that the trigger was considered to be too minor to bother others with. Think of it like this each event tend to add one more notch of heat under the emotional pressure cooker finally it is that extra one trivial notch that is the final 'straw'.

Anyone who has someone who is under pressure needs sensitive/aware monitoring. The difference between a pressure blow up and and explosion is time and or release mechanisms. Hence this is the reasoning behind intervention services

For what its worth, I recently heard a story that changed my views on this considerably. I am usually a free speech freak, meaning that I would naturally favour no restrictions. However I have seen it stated over and over again that publishing suicides causes more suicides. The evidence for this seems to fairly solid. At least, when suicides at a popular location were hushed up, there seems to be no doubt the rates at that location dropped. And when the restrictions on reporting of suicides was introduced so, slowly did the number of suicides. Given that evidence, it is very hard to not to support restrictions on reporting suicides.

But it turns out things are not quite as them seemed. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has now said its rates calculating the nation's suicide rate is flawed and is being revised. The figure of 1800 suicides should be closer to 2,700. It appears suicide rates have not dropped at all. Yes suicide rates dropped at popular sites - but only because no-one knew about them, the choose less popular ones. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2663216.htm

It is not hard to see the restrictions on media reporting could go some way to explaining this. Suicides are embarrassing to the family. Pressure is put on to say something else happened. It is so much easy to bow to that pressure if the media is muzzled.

Under reporting has other effects. It means we reduce funding on mental health services, because it less of a problem relative to say, car accidents. It means the victims families don't put as much pressure on out pollies about it, because if it only happens to them it must be somehow their fault. It means we, as a community, don't discuss it and therefore we have less of an idea we should look for, and what we can do about it if we see it. There is after all nothing like hearing that little Johnny down the road topped himself to make your average parent hyper aware of the problem.