Last month, two people far at the periphery of my social circles have threatened suicide. Seems like a sign for me to learn some ledge-fu.
I reviewed the stuff I'd learned back in high school ("Listen." "Be supportive." "Don't argue." "Etc etc etc.") I have trouble believing that this would work outside of movieland, especially on strangers. More so, in person I'm an awkward, fidgeting introvert---the impact of everything I say is thus diminished, and I sound very insincere or clinical, like I'm following a bad movie script, when I say anything like, "You are not alone in this. I’m here for you." or "How can I best support you right now?" I doubt that this would sound any better in writing.
I suppose I could split my question into two related ones: what would you say to a person threatening to commit suicide, 1. in person, and 2. in an email?
I'm looking for out-of-the-box ideas that don't rely on charisma or compassion shining through. Personally, if I ever need to talk myself out of suicidal thoughts, I apply the "bum comparison principle": if my life is so crummy that I'm willing to commit suicide, then I should be willing to just walk out on everything I value and drift off in a random direction, survive by dine-and-dashing out of cheap restaurants and wash dishes if I get caught, maybe take odd jobs or hitchhike or gather roots and berries or blog from public libraries. I don't see this possibility in a negative light, and yet I still haven't done it. To me, it means that however bad my life may seem, I'm still too attached to it to walk out; therefore, suicide isn't on the menu.
People have different reasons to want suicide, and I understand that what works for me with my first world problems probably won't work for a person who is in too much physical pain from an incurable disease. To the best of my knowledge, the two people I mentioned earlier are both unskilled laborers who had lost their jobs, one of them so long ago that he's no longer eligible for unemployment benefits. I don't think I'll meet these particular people again, but I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts on what I could've said if my brain hadn't frozen.
This doesn't really answer the question on which empirical data the claim is based. Some further points:
Suicidal behavior or ideation are a diagnostic criterion for severe depression. If someone is identified as suicidal, that fact alone is likely to get them diagnosed as depressed. This reduces the usefulness of the depression classification to decide whether a particular suicide is a good or bad idea.
The treatability of depression, as defined by the likelihood that you eventually get these people to claim they're better, doesn't tell me how much they suffered before getting to this point, whether they would voluntarily go through it again to survive, and what their future risks of recidivism are.
There are probably selection effects as to who reports what in a salient manner. Given that suicidal people can be involuntarily hospitalized, honesty under threats of such forced treatment is less likely. As for cases salient in the media, I expect strong selection effects based on society's desire to hear about happy endings, rather than a felicific analysis that may turn out negative. You don't go on TV and say you wish you'd died 10 years ago, leaving your family behind. I expect people both to lie and to be selected for their willingness to lie about this.
Finally, people can simply be wrong about their total distribution of wellbeing. You are miserable for years, then get better, and in hindsight it becomes a blur. This doesn't tell me that the total quality of life beyond the suicidal point is something I would want, or force onto someone, or even recommend to someone.
More arguments or empirical data?
However much they suffered before that point, and whether they would go through it again to survive, are not relevant points to whether they should be glad that they didn't die. They're sunk costs. A person might be tortured, and have a long life of good qua... (read more)