You are so right; that is exactly how I am much of the time.
That makes a lot of sense to me and I have spent many, many hours over the years convincing other people to live. Countless times, I have sat at the computer or on the phone or with someone in person and persuaded them to the utmost of my ability not to kill themselves. The problem I have with it is what comes next. Often when I talk someone out of suicide I ask myself who's going to pick up the pieces, who's actually going to improve the quality of their life to the point at which they no longer see suicide as the only option. Sometimes I feel that I've cheated them.
I understand from your shared items Dr G:http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/contributors/despair-is-not-the-end-of-the-road-but-the-beginning-20091004-ghu5.htmlThat the doctors involved in that tragic young woman's case are now infront of the GMC. I hope they will be aquitted and that 'savage' Mental Act 2005 that allowed them to make their decision be put in their place and accused and be found guilty.I also think that medics young and old should get some training on this particular case and how it was, IMO, mishandled 'because of that careless law'. Everybody can learn some lessons from this sad event so that this young woman's death is not in vain!
FYI, a landmark epidemiological study of forty years ago (isle of Wight Study, Rutter et al), revealed that around 40% of 'ordinary' young teenagers harboured transient suicidal ideas. There's a lot of it about, but very little should be the concern of the NHS: most people sort themselves out usually with the help of their friends and families. Only when such ideation is in the context of a handicapping pathological disorder (major depressive disorder especially) rather than part of a transient intellectual existential dilemma should scarce NHS resources be applied IMHO.
As someone who has thought of suicide many times over the years, I know that this statement is right, what I want is escape from feeling so dreadful. There should be a difference between someone at the end of their life with a terminal or severely disabling disease who decides that they no longer wish to continue with existence, and people suffering from mood swings. I am normally very much infavour of people controlling their own lifes, however, it seems to me we need to take a step backwards and allow doctors a little paternalis. It may occasionally be irritating, but at least protects people like this girl. The trade off is worthwhile. Endless protocols which purport to make decisions for people mean they never have to develop their decision making abilities. They are inevitably crude and do not cover all the subtle combinations of factors that can apply. I find it interesting that younger professionals seem less willing to make decisions from first principles these days, they want to be told what the rule is. This is not, I believe because they are less intelligent but because the consequences of getting it wrong are now far worse and likely to occur. Because society is far less homgeneous in its values and beliefs no one can rely on good old common law/common sense to protect them when they act in good faith.
You are so right.I remember when I had flu a few years ago, and never ever having been really ill with anything, I was lying in bed feeling more miserable than I'd ever been in my live and moaning that I wished I was dead. No doubt an outsider might have taken it at face value (which worries me with all this talk of assisted suicide), but all I got from my wife was "Don't be such a B**** fool, there are plenty of people out there who are far worse off than you". And quite right too!
But the ones who truly wanted to die are dead, denying you the chance to speak to them. Only the ones who didn't want to die are available for interview, or for posting blog comments.But what the proportions are, I have no idea.
MYTH: If it is on the web, it must be true! FACT: Special interest groups pedal their own views. That is why it is important to check out the source of the statement, and the research it is based on. As it happens, the myth/fact comes directly from the Samaritans website (hover over the post and click on the link). The Samaritans have an agenda. I think we need to know the source of the data behind the Samaritan's assertion (not available that I can see on their website). As Dearieme has spotted, the epidemiology behind such a study is likely to be flawed - unless, that is, the Samaritans also give out their contact details in the afterlife.... I am not saying the Myth/Fact are not true: just saying it is an unreferenced assertion from a special interest group. Does anyone know of any good research on this?
Hi Dr G,Have mentioned this post in my news roundup on nhs247. It'll appear tomorrow. Thanks,Julie
Thanks, Julie. I presume it will appear here.
Would seem to have validity, to me. I manage suicidality and risk on a daily basis and would agree that almost always it's the case that if life can be changed for the better/if they can be helped to change to endure better then life's acceptable (and folk aren't then feeling actively suicidal).A small, small number of folk have suicidal thoughts, feelings or behaviours arising from major mental illness. But this biomedical aetiology is wholly eclipsed by the psychosocial adversity generating massive symptom burden.
Post a Comment