The tragic part of Tyler Clementi’s suicide was its unpredictability. I ended my last blog concluding that there are no guarantees when it comes to preventing someone from committing suicide. This is especially true when suicide occurs by impulsivity rather than premeditation. In premeditated suicide the individual typically exhibits classic suicidal symptoms therefore allowing us time to intervene while those who commit suicide by impulsivity give us no warning or time.
Many people have been saddened and outraged in response to Tyler Clementi’s suicide and are demanding something be done. The question is, “What can we do to prevent future impulsive suicides?” We know that impulsive type suicides are more likely to be young men than women or older men. The method of suicide is violent, lethal and easily available. These individuals typically die by jumping or by shooting themselves. We can statistically narrow down the profile of people who commit impulsive type suicides but how can that information help us to decrease the number of future impulsive type suicides?
The answer can be found by asking the following question, “ How did someone commit suicide?” rather than “Why did someone commit suicide?” Scott Anderson, in his article, “The Urge to End It”, published in The New York Times, July, 2008 wrote the following:
“ Turn the equation around: if the impulsive suicide attempter tends to reach for whatever means are easy or quick, is it possible that the availability of means can actually spur the act?” The very fact that someone kills himself we regard as proof of intent – and of mental illness; the actual method used, we assume, is of minor importance.”
The following studies are important in supporting the conclusion that the “how” of the suicide is more valuable then the “why” in preventing impulsive type suicides: The British Coal – Gas Conversion Story, The Ellington and Taft Bridge Study and Richard Seiden’s work following up the suicide attempters from the Golden Gate Bridge, between 1937 and 1971. In the late 1950’s Britain started an energy conversion plan replacing coal gas lines with natural gas lines because natural was much cleaner. Many Britons heated there homes and fueled their stoves with coal gas. It happens that the unburned fumes of coal gas are deadly due to the higher levels of carbon monoxide and if leaked into a small-enclosed area, a person could die from asphyxiation within minutes.
Therefore, someone in a moment of despair could just stick their head in the stove and asphyxiate! This was a very effective means of suicide, available, quick and easy. As a result of the conversion, something unexpected and amazing happened. A decade after the energy conversion, the number of suicides in Britain dropped by one third and currently remains close to that reduced rate. How could this be? The answer quite simply was to remove the means of death and in doing so slowed down the dark impulse until it could pass. Remove or create obstacles and you will have slowed down the person enough to regain their sanity. This also has proven to work with premeditated type suicides. In northwest Washington there stands two bridges; the Duke Ellington and parallel to the Ellington is the Taft Bridge.
The Ellington has been well known as Washington’s suicide bridge. There was a group who lobbied for suicide barriers to be put up. The opposition argued it wouldn’t make a difference, because people would just go over to the Taft and jump off. Five years after the suicide barriers were put up suicides at the Ellington were eliminated completely and the number of suicides at Taft hardly changed. As a result of eliminating the suicides at the Ellington, the total number of suicides in Washington decreased by 50 percent. Why the Ellington over the Taft to begin with? Simply put, it was the height of the rails. The Ellington’s rails came up to the waist height of a man where as the Taft’s rails came up to the shoulder height of a man.
Seiden’s research answers, “ What happens to suicide attempters who were stopped during their initial attempt?” Seiden followed 515 individuals who attempted suicide from the Golden Gate Bridge between the years of 1934 to 1971. He concluded that out of the 515 individuals who attempted suicide only10 percent eventually killed themselves and 90 percent got past it and moved on with their lives. What does this all mean? If we can slow down the process and create impediments, we have a much better chance of preventing people from impulsive type suicides. It’s all in the timing!
Seiden, Richard.(1978) “Where are they now: A Follow-up Study of Suicide Attempters from the Golden Gate Bridge.” Suicide of Life and Threatening Behavior. Human Sciences Press. Vol. 8
Anderson, Scott. "The Urge to End It All." The New York Times 26 July 2008. Print.
©2010 Wanda Behrens Horrell, All Rights Reserved
www.wandabehrenshorrell.com
wjb60@columbia.edu
