The last line of defense for some suicidal people is the dedicated mental health professional committed to helping their patient stay alive through profound darkness and pain. But a subversive movement within psychiatry, psychology, and social work holds that only “irrational” suicides should be prevented. And for years, activists have sought to subvert the standards of psychiatric practice to permit mental health professionals to “permit” or “validate” some of their patients’ suicides.
Case in point, “Distinguishing Among Irrational Suicide and Other Forms of Hastened Death: Implications for Clinical Practice,” by Cavin P. Leeman, MD, FAPM, in the May-June Psychosomatics. From the article (no link):
Clearly, most suicide is irrational, and good clinical practice, as codified in the recent APA Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Treatment of Patients With Suicidal Behaviors, includes careful assessment of anyone known to have suicidal thoughts, plans, or behaviors. Yet, surprisingly, the Guideline does not even mention the possibility of rational suicide. Perhaps that is because of what has been referred to as psychiatry’s “reflexive antagonism to behaviors that hasten death.”
In contrast to APA’s official position, definitions of rational suicide have been appearing in the literature of psychiatry and mental health for at leas1 20 years. According to a 1986 article, in rational suicide “I) the individual possesses a realistic assessment of his situation; 2) the mental processes leading to his decision to commit suicide are unimpaired by psychological illness or severe emotional distress; and 3) the motivational bases of his decision would be understandable to the majority of uninvolved observers from his community or social group.”
In other words, if most people thought they would commit suicide under similar circumstances, let’s give the suicidal a going away party! Leeman then gives the example of “Mrs. S,” a suicidal woman with Huntington’s disease as an example of a suicide that should be permitted:
Indeed, if, after due diligence and reasonable postponement, extremely important steps that Dr. Kevorkian might not have insisted upon, Mrs. S is found to have decisional capacity and her decision is found to be deliberate, authentic, consistent with her long-held values, and not the result of mental illness, I believe that we are duty-bound to respect her right of self-determination, and not to interfere.” I would consider Mrs. S’s hastened death, under those circumstances, to be a relatively rare, but real, case of rational suicide.
Due diligence, shmu-diligence. Those are just words. In reality, once the concept was accepted, what constituted a “rational” desire “to suicide” (some of these advocates now use the word as a verb), would merely be in the eye of the beholder–as Oregon has already demonstrated. For example, if one psychiatrist said no, the patient could just go shrink shopping–as occurred in the Kate Cheney case–to find a mental health professional willing to give the A-Okay. Indeed, as we saw in the Michael Freeland case, once suicide is validated, even people diagnosed as psychotic can still have access to suicide. (After he received a lethal prescription from a Compassion and Choices-referred doctor, a psychiatrist diagnosed Freeland as psychotic and recommended court supervision. But even though Freeland was delusional, he allowed the patient to keep a lethal prescription “safely at home.”) And then there is the case of the woman who wanted assisted suicide in Oregon referred by the lethally prescribing doctor to a psychiatric “consultation,” which consisted of a brief discussion by phone in the presence of her family who laughed at the questions being posed. The psychologist validated the suicide without ever meeting the patient.
Rational suicide is profound abandonment by definition. And it wouldn’t just affect patients whose own doctors validated their self destructive desires. It would also send out the societal message that the mental health professions believe suicide is a legitimate way out of one’s problems. And that could lead to the deaths of a lot of people who never bothered to discuss their desires with a psychiatrist.





July 22nd, 2009 | 4:55 pm
They use the word “rational” an awful lot, don’t they. Tack that word onto it and it must be ok?
July 23rd, 2009 | 6:53 am
Ianthe: Right on. Tack that word [rational] onto it and it IS ok. What I find IRrational is that some people are so soundly convinced that suicide is wrong that they’re totally incapable of even trying to imagine that it might be a rational alternative in some circumstances. I used the example of Mrs. Strauss deciding to stay on board the Titanic to die with her husband instead of taking her place in a lifeboat [don't argue that it was an act of altruism; the lifeboats were under-filled, so we can't suppose that she saved someone else's life by giving up her place]. Or consider the people who decided to jump to their deaths from the World Trade Center towers — a relatively painless alternative to being burned alive. Are people going to argue that this was an irrational act because they didn’t know for certain that they were doomed — that the deus ex machina might suddenly have made an appearance and extinguished the flames? No, the APA is being perfectly realistic when it allows that the act of suicide can be rational under some circumstances. Just because there have been a few instances in which doctors have not been diligent in evaluating rationality is no reason to abandon the entire concept — any more than discovering that one’s own family physician is incompetent should deter a person from seeking medical care with other doctors.
July 23rd, 2009 | 12:42 pm
20 years ago, I went through a 3-day training program to be a “suicide prevention hotline” volunteer. By the end of the training, I was told that I should find somewhere else to volunteer, because I refused to accept the group’s position that it was wrong to try to talk people out of committing suicide, and if need be, to summon help for the person who might commit suicide while they were talking to me.
One of the exercises was for the group to agree or disagree with the statement “suicide is always wrong.” Only 3 or 4 of the 20 people agreed with that statement. We were told that it was only ill-considered suicides we should be trying to prevent, and that doing otherwise was “playing God.”
“Some people just want to say good-bye, and feel accepted,” I was told. So they call a “suicide PREVENTION” hotline? They should have named it the “suicide clarification and assistance hotline.”
How would you like to know that your suicidal son or daughter was talking to someone on a suicide prevention hotline with this attitude?
July 23rd, 2009 | 2:38 pm
HW: I think when it gets to the point of suicide, as in the examples you cited, rationality or irrationality has nothing to do with it. At that point, it’s a choice made in the heart, or from fear, desperation, or the vain hope that outside the window there will be a net, or just not being in any state of being to think at all. in extremis, rational and irrational are apart from the equation. That’s why I don’t like these clowns using the word “rational,” as they do all the time, to get their way. They don’t care about rationality; they care about keeping their own jobs.
July 23rd, 2009 | 9:35 pm
Ianthe: Just curious: can you imagine any scenario at all in which suicide might be an acceptable alternative to continuing to live?
July 27th, 2009 | 4:38 pm
Great article. Thanks for posting! Unfortunately, I am torn on the issue and don’t have an opinion. Nevertheless, it was very nice to read all of your opinions.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact