Home ~ About us ~ Ahead of print ~ Current Issue ~ Back Issues ~ Search ~ Instructions ~ Subscription ~ Advertise ~ Feedback ~ Login  
  Mens Sana Monographs
A Monograph Series Devoted To The Understanding Of Medicine, Mental Health, Man, Mind, Music And Their Matrix
 Why MSM | Acknowledgement | Call for papers... | Forthcoming MSM...  Users online: 45  Home Email this article Print this Article Bookmark this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size 


 
 Table of Contents     
APPENDIX
Year : 2004  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 34-37
Answering Two Serious Charges on Suicide Prevention


The Editor, Mens Sana Monographs, Mumbai, India

Correspondence Address:
Ajai R Singh
The Editor, Mens Sana Monographs, Mumbai
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 22815600

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions




There are two serious, though well intentioned, charges on suicide prevention which deserve our equally serious consideration:

  1. Whatever we do, the rate of suicide in a particular society will remain fairly constant (Durkheim, 1952).
  2. Suicide is disturbingly ubiquitous and universal across cultures and ages. Psychiatry does not seem (yet) to fare better than the more traditional, menacing attempts of moralists, theologians and legislators at stopping people from killing themselves (Heyd and Bloch, 1984).**


The First Question

When Durkheim makes the first statement, it is improper to read it as a resignation to the inevitable. It should spur us on to find out why this is so, if indeed it is. The attack on suicide cannot be only at the personal level, although that is very important. It must as well, and moreso, be at the social level, to identify and tackle those sociological processes that predispose individuals to such action. In this we must identify atleast two factors: social isolation of the individual and social disintegration of the society. Preventing social isolation will involve Befriending and Samaritan like programmes allright. But equally important would be strengthening of the social networks: the family, religious and community welfare activities, avenues for involvement with people and programmes, identifying at risk population and absorbing them in the mainstream etc. etc.. First and foremost, it must involve a change of perception among the members of society, wherein a suicidal thought or attempt is acceptable as a cry for help. An occasion to mobilise all resources to help rather than stigmatize or ostracize. To rally around the individual rather than leave him to fend for himself. When we talk of preventing social disintegration, we are talking of social processes that will integrate rather than divide members of society from each other. Religion has proved to be a preventive factor, for example; for in general Catholics show lower suicide rates than Protestants, and there is much less suicide amongst Muslims in the month of Ramzan. What is that hold of religion which prevents, or postpones, suicide is worth further exploration. Rapid social change brings about alienation and anomie. Greater deviance and suicide are the price we pay for such destabilizing progress. What the social engineers should therefore attempt at is such social change as grows on its members, that integrates rather than dismembers. Which is conscious of the fact that maladjustment is the fallout of all progress, no doubt, and the greater the rate of progress, the greater the maladjustment. This realisation is not only to accept it as inevitable, but to make active attempts to stem deviance. Where one can identify the at risk population, find out those who are maladjusted, and intervene on the side of integration, to absorb them as members of society. Ofcourse, it goes without saying that members of society must actively resist any attempts by its leaders, or social pundits, to force rapid change on its members. Messiahs in a hurry to do good can be very hard to sustain. Changeovers, whether they involve change from tradition to modernity, from a command economy to a liberal one , from spiritualism to materialism, from Indian to Western values, must indeed be allowed to seep in rather than be forced on by subtle, and not so subtle, means.

In the other words, concrete steps to reduce social isolation and prevent social disintegration are a must. It is these two which are the wellsprings of psychopathology in general and suicidal attempts in particular, and need to be actively combated. Psychiatric care is often only a damage control exercise. The lesson, therefore, is : if you plug the source , the need for damage control will reduce greatly, if not disappear completely. Ofcourse this realisation does not absolve mental health workers of their responsibilities. In fact, it makes them more aware of the problem, of the wider perspective, and also make efforts to find better ways of tackling it. Pointing to the social psychopathological processes should not become a convenient means of passing the buck. Which means, mental health workers cannot blame society for generating suicides, and society cannot blame the former for not doing their job well . That is an immature debate, and a poor way of solving the problem. The solution lies in a two pronged attack. Society takes up the responsibility of reducing social isolation and preventing social disintegration. Mental health workers take up the responsibility of handling psychiatric disorders, and finding new and more efficient means of treating them. Psychopathological entities likes suicide can then be drastically minimised, and finally eradicated.

The Second Question

The second question of proof whether psychiatry has succeeded where the rest have failed, should now be answered. Psychiatrists play a limited, though significant, role in reducing social morbidity. They are essentially specialists in treating psychiatric diseases. This also undoubtedly reduces the social burden by reducing the overall psychological distress of members of society. There is no doubt on that score. Moreover, realising that the problem is too complex to yield to a piecemeal approach, they are ready to coordinate with other social scientists in an attempt to reduce this manifestation of social morbidity. Without giving up on their core activity, they will, and must, cooperate with all those processes that generate social health rather than promote social psychopathology. Hence the shift of emphasis from psychiatric diseases to mental health. But we need remember that essentially they are mental diseases' specialists. While they can treat, rehabilitate, and even help prevent mental diseases, they may not have that great a say in those social processes that generate social isolation, and cause social disintegration.

Hence to reduce suicide rates, positive attempts by society to reduce social isolation and prevent social disintegration are a must. Otherwise psychopathology and consequent morbidity and mortality will continuously result. The third sphere of influence is of the mental health workers. Let us take up their role now.

Suicide and Depression

The greatest threat of suicide comes from patients of Major Depression. This is a condition eminently suitable to treatment, as every psychiatrist knows only too well. Suicidal thoughts remit as the depression is controlled, and the gratitude of patients and relatives is there for all to see. But the fact of the matter is that even today, and even in an advanced society like the USA, only one third cases of depression take treatment, not only because of under recognition by health care providers but also because individuals often conceive of their depression as a type of moral deficiency, which is shameful and must be hidden (Stahl,2003).* Which means two-thirds cases of depression do not even take treatment. Who is to ensure that these people are brought for treatment? These two-thirds run a big risk of suicide. Society may just label them as failures, cry over them for a while, and carry on. But precious lives are lost because other members of society, the family, close friends, employees, welfare bodies are unaware of the needs of such depressed patients, and make no attempts to get them into treatment. This is one area where positive action is most urgently needed. The other area of concern is the fact that 15% severely depressed patients eventually commit suicide inspite of treatment (Stahl,2003).* It means two things: one, 85% do not, and they have been helped by psychiatric treatment, which is not a bad success rate by any standards. (Although 15% failure rate is not something to be happy about, it is acceptable in any treatment setting in any branch of medicine). But to accept this failure rate is not enough. We need to work towards better and more efficient psychiatric care, with that becoming a major thrust area in research, coupled with a greater sensitization of society and relatives to the needs of the severely depressed so that they are not cast aside, or given up. It may help to think of the severely depressed as emotionally handicapped, atleast temporarily. They need the crutches of social and family support to help them tide over their difficulties, like an accident victim or a physically handicapped may need crutches or callipers to tide over his physical handicap.

Therefore, better psychiatric care, newer and more effective treatments, greater research and funding, and greater social support are the need of the hour, not meek acceptance of ideas that whatever we do, death rates will not drop, for death will find newer avenues to manifest. If infections are con­trolled, life-style diseases come up to claim victims. If they are controlled, some other diseases will come up to lead to the inevitable. So why have medi­cine at all? This nihilistic position is erroneous because even if death eventu­ally has to occur, it has to occur eventually, it is not to be desired or welcomed prematurely. We got to ensure a better quality of life by removing distress and disability , which is what the whole science of medicine is all about. One of this distress and disability is suicide. And the role of the psy­chiatrist in preventing it in his patients and thus reducing psychopathology in society at large cannot be underestimated. Hence, we may reiterate that psychiatry plays a limited but significant role in reducing social morbidity, and that is something to be proud of, not apologetic about at all.

Report statistics of prevented suicides

We must also remember, further, that whilst suicide that takes place becomes a statistic , one that is prevented does not. The clinician who knows and treats his suicidal patients, who then get rid of their suicidal ideas and become productive members of society, has no figures to claim that he has indeed saved a life. Maybe he should present these figures to society as well. That will probably be an eye opener. One suspects that suicide rates do not come down inspite of psychiatrists' attempts is not because they are useless but inspite of them. This just goes to show how menacing are those social processes which do generate such psychopathology. Most probably, with mental health workers not being around, the rate of suicides would have been much higher. Psychiatrists need not feel disheartened that suicide rates have not dropped. If indeed they haven't. They only need to work harder on research and treatment of their suicidal patients. But they must also help make society aware that it must tackle those processes in its functioning that generate social isolation and disintegration, of which suicide is one malignant fallout. To that extent, Durkheim was right when he refused to blame either the suicidal patients, or praise or condemn the different forms of suicide that he described. He never meant to praise altruistic compared to egoistic, or anomic, suicide. He merely mentioned them as different types. But he definitely meant to raise a finger at those social processes that generate and force individuals to commit such acts, and then get reduced to mere numbers in such categories.

If a suicide free society is the goal, then suicide prevention must become public health policy. And the three fundamental parameters must be:

  1. Reduce social isolation,
  2. Prevent social disintegration,
  3. Treat psychiatric disorders.


The wider implications of this realisation, and the microprocesses to bring this about must be the plan on which suicidologists, policy planners and governments all over must unite and act.

This is the agenda to set. This is the blueprint to plan for. This is the frontier to be crossed.[3]

 
   References Top

1.Durkheim, E (1952), Suicide, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 46-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Heyd D., Bloch S. (1984), The ethics of suicide. In Psychiatric Ethics (Eds. Sidney Bloch and Paul Chodoff), Ox Uni Press, N.Y., 185-202 (quote on p. 186).  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Stahl, S.M. (2003), Depression and Bipolor Disorders. In Essential Psychopharmacology : Neuroscientific Basis and Practical Applications, Second Edn, Cam. Uni. Press 2000, First South Asian Ed. 2003, Foundation Books, New Delhi. p 139-41.  Back to cited text no. 3
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
  
 
  Search
   
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (134 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1532    
    Printed140    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded84    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal