Issue:

34,2006

Page:

8-9

Abstract

Does government policy on suicide cost lives?

Keywords:	Men, Suicide, Government, Media
Author:	Peter Walker

Government policy puts strict regulations on what the media can and can’t report about suicide and what can and can’t be talked about in schools. Peter Walker thinks that the current regime of silence is costing lives.

Eleven people are sitting in a circle. They know each other intimately. They have shared their darkest secrets with the group, and these broken people trust each other. They are borderline. Depressed. Bi-polar. Schizophrenic. The facilitator holds this group together with two things – her own experiences, and her integrity. The group trusts her, sometimes with their lives.

Today, the facilitator faces a difficult decision. One person is missing from the support group. Three days earlier, that person killed himself. The others miss him, but they do not know why he is not there. The facilitator must either lie to them, possibly causing them stress, or tell them the truth, breaking the rules, which dictate they cannot talk about suicide.

There is a debate going on in New Zealand. In March, former Race Relations Conciliator and Founding Chairman of the Youth Suicide Awareness Trust, Gregory Fortuin referred to a “regime of silence” surrounding the vexing issue of suicide. Associate Minister of Health, Jim Anderton, denied any such “regime” exists.

“Talking about suicide” can take many forms. Internationally, there are specific guidelines set down by Governments as to how mainstream media should report on suicide. The New Zealand Ministry of Health (MOH) proscribes “glorifying suicide”, reporting “how-to descriptions”, presenting suicide as a solution to problems, and printing where and how details..

There is an immense body of knowledge about the causes of suicide, and how the media may impact suicide numbers has been the topic of significant discussion. An Australian study reported an increased number of suicides following certain portrayals of suicide in the media, primarily television. The mainstream media generally take a cautious stance.

Suicide is a popular subject on the Internet and attempts have been made by Government departments to shut down some web sites, or to order some content withdrawn.

Non-Government Organisations (NGO’s) have also been the target of Government sanctions on discussing suicide. While Yellow Ribbon, a school-based peer support programme, was not specifically named, schools were warned by the Ministries of Health, Education, and Youth Affairs not to participate in such programmes. This when the youth suicide rate was near it’s highest.

The controversy surrounding school-based awareness programmes appears to rest largely on the evaluation of such initiatives. Annette Beautrais, of the Canterbury Suicide Project, writes:

“While a recent review of school-based programmes found increased knowledge about suicide, improved attitudes about depression and suicide, and lower suicide attempt rates in the intervention compared to the control group in the three months after intervention, the evaluation failed to find increased rates of help-seeking or suicidal ideation in students exposed to the programmes,” (Australian eJournal for the Advancement of Mental Health, V. 5, Issue 1, 2006).

Neither did the review report an increased number of suicides because of exposure to such programmes. In a 2002 MOH pamphlet, Maria Cotter suggested “some evidence shows that they (school-based suicide awareness programmes) actually increase the risk of suicide amongst those who are already vulnerable.” A former Yellow Ribbon ambassador, however, praised the programme and is adamant about its’ benefits.

Another example of censorship occurred when Craccum (University of Auckland student newspaper) editors/writers were heavily censured when they published two articles about suicide deemed to have breached accepted guidelines.

In October, 2005, Suicide Prevention Information New Zealand (SPINZ), part of the Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand, held the “Males and Suicide: Pathways Forward” Symposium, to discuss the disproportionate rate of male suicide. Some, however, criticized SPINZ, saying their claims were “misleading”, and therefore, according to a news report, “did not take up the opportunity to present or participate in the symposium.”

In June the MOH published the New Zealand Suicide Prevention Strategy 2006-2016. It’s seven goals intend to “provide a clear direction for suicide prevention efforts over the next ten years.” However, “how these goals will be achieved, by when and by whom, will be described in the action plans that will accompany the strategy.” There is no indication in the document when the first action plan will be announced.

If the NZSPS provides “clear direction” for suicide prevention efforts, it is surprising that Annette Beautrais recently wrote that “we know relatively little about what is most effective in preventing suicide,” (AeJAMH).

Still, the Government and it’s experts maintain a “we know better” attitude. Since 1986, well over 400 Kiwi’s have killed themselves each year. Two decades of “suicide prevention” has not lowered the numbers.

There is little support among the experts for “public awareness campaigns” about suicide. Recent awareness campaigns, however, have been moderately successful in lowering the road death toll, helping smokers to quit, and de-stigmatising mental illness.

Public education is essential to reducing the suicide rate and the experts are being too cautious. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 26 October, 2005, states “the effectiveness of public awareness and education campaigns in reducing suicidal behaviours has seldom been systematically evaluated.” Therefore, it could be argued that such a campaign may help reduce the suicide rate.

Common sense says that talking about suicide, and encouraging help-seeking behaviours, will have a positive effect. The MOH web site states that “allowing people to speak openly about suicide will likely reduce the risk of suicide rather than give them the idea to try it.”

Many “front-line” people think more open discussion of suicide will be beneficial. They do not want to sensationalise or glorify suicide. They want to be able to discuss suicide frankly. “Absolutely,” says Gill, a mental health worker. “You can flatten all the buildings, get rid of all the cutlery, shut down all of the hardware stores, but they will always find a way. A small percentage, determined to take their lives. They don’t talk about it. They just do it. But that’s only a very small percentage. The rest want to talk about it. Desperately want to talk about it.”

The mainstream media can be a powerful tool. It could be used to encourage some people to seek help when things are getting on top of them. Perhaps not all will avail themselves of the help, and certainly the Government needs to resource service agencies better. But it may be that some suicidal people will seek help instead of taking their own lives.

World Suicide Prevention Day (September 10) passed almost without mention in New Zealand. The IASP (International Association for Suicide Prevention) and WHO (the World Health Organisation) suggested a number of initiatives to mark the day – conferences, newspaper articles, TV and radio interviews, public lectures, memorial services, concerts or candle-lit ceremonies. None of these things happened in New Zealand.

With little, if any, evidence to support it, the New Zealand Government seems to have adopted the attitude that if nobody talks openly about suicide, fewer people will do it. Perhaps the question, then, should not be how many lives have been saved because of the silence, but how many lives have been lost because of it?

   'The Killer Within'