Suicide is one of those irrational acts that is still misunderstood and stigmatized, even amongst people who otherwise are okay with mainstream mental health concerns. Most people still don’t understand how someone could ever feel so despondent and depressed that they would want to end their own lives. I also suspect that at one time or another, a significant minority of people have thought about suicide, even if just in passing.
The New York Times Magazine had an article this past weekend about a different approach to suicide. Instead of only looking to help treat people most at risk for suicide (people who suffer from depression, for instance), public health officials are also looking at the common means in which suicide is committed.
One of those common means is jumping off a bridge. And one of the easiest preventions of jumping off a bridge is a simple, inexpensive fence. We’ve written previously about how we believe that bridges should be proofed against suicide and that a human life is worth more than a slightly-obstructed view.
Opponents to fences on bridges (known as a “suicide barrier” in these discussions) cite the belief that people will just find another way to commit suicide. And yet all of the research data we have suggests that for the vast majority of people, that is simply untrue. It’s one of those repeated false beliefs that has no backing of actual data.
That’s because suicide is an irrational act, but people engage in discussions about people who are temporarily suicidal as though they were making rational decisions and choices. “Hey, if they find a fence on our bridge, they’ll just go home and shoot themselves,” is one common refrain from opponents. Luckily for most people, this isn’t the case. People choose very specific means to end their lives, and they generally don’t switch between methods. And most don’t find other methods.
Richard Seiden, a professor emeritus and psychologist at the University of California, published a study showing that the vast majority of people who are thwarted from jumping from a bridge don’t go on to commit suicide:
In the late 1970s, Seiden set out to test the notion of inevitability in jumping suicides. Obtaining a Police Department list of all would-be jumpers who were thwarted from leaping off the Golden Gate between 1937 and 1971 — an astonishing 515 individuals in all — he painstakingly culled death-certificate records to see how many had subsequently “completed.” His report, “Where Are They Now?” (PDF) remains a landmark in the study of suicide, for what he found was that just 6 percent of those pulled off the bridge went on to kill themselves.
He also published a ground-breaking article (Seiden & Spence, 1982) that looked at the suicide rates between the two bridges in San Francisco, the Golden Gate and the Oakland Bay Bridge, and wasn’t surprised to find the Golden Gate is the more popular suicide magnet. One in which over 2,000 people have jumped to their deaths from since its opening in 1937.
Need more evidence? Another study conducted in England also found a significant reduction in suicides (more than 50%) after a fence was installed on the local bridge (Bennewith et al., 2007). Just as importantly, they also found no evidence of increased jumping from other sites in the geographic region due to the erection of the fences.
Now, despite this evidence, opponents still suggest that people simply go on to other means. Again, assuming that people are acting and thinking rationally. Which they aren’t (duh!):
“At the risk of stating the obvious,” Seiden said, “people who attempt suicide aren’t thinking clearly. They might have a Plan A, but there’s no Plan B. They get fixated. They don’t say, ‘Well, I can’t jump, so now I’m going to go shoot myself.’ And that fixation extends to whatever method they’ve chosen. They decide they’re going to jump off a particular spot on a particular bridge, or maybe they decide that when they get there, but if they discover the bridge is closed for renovations or the railing is higher than they thought, most of them don’t look around for another place to do it. They just retreat.”
Now, while we can’t prevent all suicides, we can certainly make certain types of suicide a thing of the past. In one study about suicide in New York City (Gross et al., 2007), for instance, researchers found nearly a quarter of all successful suicides were from jumping from a tall structure, such as a bridge. A simple, tall fence would eliminate the vast majority of all of these jumping suicides overnight. It would be more effective than banning guns, knives, pools and bathtubs (drowning), or drugs, as it is the second most used method of suicide in this study (behind hanging and asphyxiation).
“The more obstacles you can throw up, the more you move it away from being an impulsive act. And once you’ve done that, you take a lot of people out of the game. If you look at how people get into trouble, it’s usually because they’re acting impulsively, they haven’t thought things through,” noted Matthew Miller, the associate director of the Injury Control Research Center, in the New York Times article. Time. That’s what most people who are thinking irrationally need. And that’s what a suicide barrier provides.
This misperception that we cannot stop people from hurting themselves is false — research data shows that we can. Because suicide is often an irrational, in-the-moment act, simple barriers are extremely effective in helping a person make the choice to live another day until the crisis has past.
The good news is that the Golden Gate Bridge District is moving forward with its work on choosing an appropriate design for a suicide barrier on the biggest suicide destination bridge in the world. While by no means a “sure thing,” it is good they are continuing their progress toward making the bridge suicide-proof. You can view the 5 designs here, 4 of which are fences (I like the openness of the third fence) and one of which is a net. The net is probably the option that provides the least interference with the aesthetics of the bridge, but I don’t see how it would prevent someone from simply climbing out of it and continuing on their downward journey.
In the meantime, 10 more people have died from the Golden Gate Bridge so far this year. Dozens more will die before a design is selected, money raised, and the barrier built.
This “band-aid” approach, as mentioned in the New York Times article, is relatively new in the public health sector and one that we support. While we can’t remove all methods of suicide and people will always commit suicide, we can take a common-sense approach and work to reduce some of the more popular and easy-to-fix methods.
Read the full article: The Urge to End It – Understanding Suicide
References:
Bennewith, O., Nowers, M. & Gunnell, D. (2007). Effect of barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge, England, on local patterns of suicide: Implications for prevention. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(3), 266-267.
Gross, C. et al. (2007). Suicide tourism in Manhattan, New York City, 1999-2004. Journal of Urban Health, 11(1), 1-11.
Seiden, R.H. (1978). Where Are They Now? A Follow-up Study of Suicide Attempters from the Golden Gate Bridge. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, 8(4), 1-13.
Seiden, R.H. & Spence, M.C. (1982). A tale of two bridges: Comparative suicide incidence on the Golden Gate and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridges. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 3(1), 32-40.
20 comments
I’m curious, why is suicide an irrational act?
“Irrational” means “Not consistent with or using reason…”
Reasoning one’s life is what brings one to suicide. In this situation, reasoning’s only flaw is that it does not admit the idea that there ‘might’ be a light at the end of the tunnel. This is not irrational. Far from it.
It’s irrational because people are making an in-the-moment judgment about the value of their life usually within a severely depressed state. The severely depressed distorts our reasoning and rational thinking (e.g., see cognitive-behavioral therapy for more background about the irrationality of our thoughts while depressed).
Suicidal crisis hotlines work because they help get a person past that momentary impulse to do something they can’t take back. A fence on a bridge does the same.
This makes perfect sense to me though it took me years to accept our sons decision as an impulsive act…it felt like the ultimate FU. ~sigh
John, two things, I have a Masters in clinical Psych and I volunteer at a distress centre here in Canada. I am well versed in both the theoretical and practical notions of what you’re saying. And I applaud you for adding to the discussion.
The point I was trying to make, however, is that suicide is not irrational. The term ‘irrational’ screams ‘wrong’ to me.
One’s reasoning might be ‘flawed’ or slightly ‘handicapped’ but it is by no means irrational…
Calling it irrational takes away EVEN MORE from the individual who sees no option but suicide. The word irrational is taking away the value of one’s choice to commit suicide! And this is flawed! One might not be able to pull out of the ‘negative’ thought cycle he or she is in, but this is not irrational.
To be sure this is a semantic distinction, but one that needs to be made!
With that, I must also say, in all my experience (in school, work, and at the centre), I have never experienced an individual, who–out of the clear blue sky–decided to commit suicide.
There is a process involved in deciding whether one should commit suicide. There are pros and cons involved. There is a long-term bout of negative thinking. There are choices being made. For the most part (I cannot say this is universal) it is hardly a spur of the moment decision.
For anyone else out there reading this, watch Eric Steel’s film ‘The Bridge.’ It will shed some light on this ‘touchy’ subject….
Cheers.
I’d like to address the exchange between John Grohol and James Majoros. First, thank you both for providing an important and provocative nested issue in suicidology. A clinician and teacher myself, I understand the clinical assessment of suicidal ideation–that it reflects errant thinking, hence “irrational” above. James’ point is nevertheless a critical, if academic to some, one increasingly impinging on legal theory and health policy. Irrational does mean senseless, lacking reasoning and understanding. I know this isn’t the place for a discussion of philosophy, but James is also right that the suicidal, or so research suggests, come to that final decision after much contemplation. At the least, reason doesn’t support the deduction that all suicidals are either senseless, unreasoning, or utterly lacking in understanding. The label “irrational†reflects a value judgment, perpetuated by a particular cultural bias in turn promulgated by exceptionally powerful social institutions (such as religion, medicine, law…) into which many become inculcated before we’ve rigorously assessed the issue. We assume any decision to terminate one’s life is irrational a priori, and then codify the assumption culturally, professionally, and legally.
Certainly we would like to diminish others’ suffering, but this is not the same issue as whether one can sensibly and with understanding and reason assign value to one’s own life, and subsequently rationally decide to end it. Yes human life is an ultimate end from our prevalent cultural perspective (and therefore one reasons, without any objective extra-cultural justification, supremely valuable). Yet while I don’t mean here to be insensitive or incendiary, another’s value of one’s possessions doesn’t philosophically determine whether one should or should not be permitted to discard them. The issue is whether we own ourselves and if that means we have the right to decide to end our lives, regardless others’ evaluations of our decision. I predict over time our cultural conception of suicide will evolve (legally convergently) as it is with other volatile issues surrounding self-ownership.
Thanks for allowing me to share,
Abraham Bin, J.D.,PhD, Clinical Neurosciences, Psychiatric Epidemiology, & Health Policy
At the risk of sounding wishy-washy, I think that both John and James have part of the answer.
It seems to me that there is a useful distinction to be made between chronic and acute suicidality.
People who might, almost impulsively, throw themselves off a bridge while in a fit of reactive depression or under the effects of substances might rightly be considered irrational at the time, especially if the decision is made in the context of a transient situation. If they can be physically prevented from following their impulse for a relatively short period I would guess that their longer term prognosis might be OK – especially if substance abuse or life skills issues are addressed.
On the other hand, to call people who have long felt their lives not worth living – whether due to a serious physical illness, intractable psychological condition or other unresolvable problems – ‘irrational’ is insulting and disempowering. Any coercive attempts to alter their perspective or interfere with their actions are not only ethically questionable, but, IMHO, likely to aggravate their problems.
I feel that chronically suicidal people would be more likely to seek help – if only to exhaust all options as part of their rational decision making – were it not for the attitude John reflects.
Michael, thank you for clarifying the distinction between acute/situational and chronic suicidal ideation. I agree that authorities might be ethically responsible for determining how “sure” someone who has decided to end her/his life is. I also agree that compelling the chronically suicidal may aggravate the precipitating problem. And I agree, too, that our current obliquely judgmental attitude towards suicide (irrational, wrong, bad) increases the risk that the suicidal will refrain from exhausting all options in their search for help.
Thanks for the comments Abraham.
I’ve tried to explain what I see as that distinction to others before and this is the first time I’ve received more than lukewarm agreement.
Of course the stats John quotes in the article regarding attempted jumpers who go on to complete suicide suggests that either the overwhelming majority of suicides are acute rather than chronic or that the acutely suicidal are disproportionately drawn to prominent landmarks. Either that or it suggests that chronically suicidal people aren’t the ones who can be talked down by the time they reach the edge.
Some of the points made in ‘The Urge to End it All’ suggest a more complex picture than the above, but of course the sample of people spoken to about their suicide attempts is skewed by the facts that (a) they were unsuccessful – so all things being equal had probably not spent a lot of time thinking through the act and possible methods and (b) they are prepared to talk to mental health professionals about their experience – and if you are still planning to kill yourself there are good reasons to decline to discuss it openly with a shrink.
Must admit that the piece started off on an astoundingly bum note that probably made me more cynical than I otherwise would have been. If the entire Camus quote had been included I don’t think Anderson could have got away with putting the spin on it that he did.
“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.” – Albert Camus
I think they are a good idea. I have been impusively suicidal. I usually think of a bridge. If I went to a bridge and there was a barrier, I wouldnt find another way. I would have to stop and think.
They would certainly have trouble getting over that fence if they were very drunk and tried to commit suicide, which often happens. Not all acts of suicide are impulsive, but many are. There are lots of people whose whole lives are filled with impulsive acts and who lead ‘chaotic’ lifestyles due to mental health problems or drugs or alcohol or all three – I’m thinking particularly of homeless people with whom I’ve worked. I’m also thinking, to a degree, of myself.
In London we don’t have barriers on the underground system and people often kill themselves by jumping in front of trains.
I think that suicide is for the weak!!! People that are to weak to face there own problems, so they leave it for there family & friends (whom they LOVE so much) to sort out. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve wanted to do it many times!!! But then I always think of how everybody would hate me even more for dumping my broblems on them. Only a strong person can kill themselves… BUT a stronger one will face his troubles, and find a way to make them better.
This may come out rude but here goes:
René – Your comment makes no sense. “Suicide is for the weak” but then “only a strong person can kill themselves.” Huh?
James – Have you ever been suicidal? No? Then you don’t know how irrational it is.
—–
I don’t understand why people make a distinction between homicide and suicide. Killing someone else is bad; everyone agrees with that. But then if you want to kill yourself, it’s “not” irrational, it’s “not” wrong. There seems to be an imbalance here.
*lets out disgruntled sigh*
Marissa, the difference between homicide and suicide is the same as the difference between sex and rape; *consent*.
What makes rape and homicide criminal is the fact that the other person hasn’t *consented* to the act, they haven’t agreed to it, and thus both rape and homicide violate a person’s right to autonomous control over themselves.
But where rape is illegal, we allow the most violent sex between two consenting adults who *choose* to engage in it. Again, the issue is consent. And suicide is, by definition, a consensual act, since by choosing to kill yourself you are choosing to accept the end of your own life.
Now, in rape we make exceptions for people who are under the influence or “incapable of giving consent” – i.e., if you say yes while under the influence of drugs, you still haven’t consented. I see no problem with applying this to suicide as well. But that leaves a whole lot of consensual suicides.
The trend over the last century or so of western legal tradition has been towards greater recognition of personal autonomy in defiance of established moral standards. We no longer criminalize homosexual sex, for example (Lawrence vs. Texas, 2003). Someday we’ll no longer criminalize suicide.
And someday those barriers will come off. Because if we are to recognize suicide as a legitimate option, then there’s no reason not to allow it to be beautiful.
I don’t agree with this article at all. I cannot say yet if I will commit suicide but I have thought about it for years now. If I did decide to do this a fence would not stop me, though I have mostly thought of using a gun or hanging myself from something very tall or seeing how fast the car will go and then wrecking it into a concrete wall on the highway. I don’t feel like I am irrational, I just don’t know if the bullshit we deal with every day is worth it. Life sucks and then you die. Why do the same thing every day? i do not look forward to every day with a smile. I dislike myself and my life, always have.
Also, I am not troubled, I am not in crisis I just don’t care. It’s noone elses decision. Who can judge someone who does kill ones self? I think people are just to emotional and socially attatched. Someone who has killed his/herself has not hurt anyone else. What is the problem?
The problem is it is an irrational act when you lose someone who loves life and family. The suffering and pain caused to loved ones is immeasurable and something that one never recovers from, not fully anyway. There are always the what ifs and whys. If your life is so bloody miserable and you feel a down and out, then only you can make the decision to get help yourself and gain some strength of character from it. It’s harder to accept when the death is sudden and you know the person loved life and chose the only option that they see at the time in a state of mind that clearly isn’t them.
‘That’s because suicide is an irrational act, but people engage in discussions about people who are temporarily suicidal as though they were making rational decisions and choices. “Hey, if they find a fence on our bridge, they’ll just go home and shoot themselves,†is one common refrain from opponents. Luckily for most people, this isn’t the case. People choose very specific means to end their lives, and they generally don’t switch between methods. And most don’t find other methods.’ ~ John M Grohol
‘Richard Seiden, a professor emeritus and psychologist at the University of California, published a study showing that the vast majority of people who are thwarted from jumping from a bridge don’t go on to commit suicide …’ ~ ibid
‘The net is probably the option that provides the least interference with the aesthetics of the bridge, but I don’t see how it would prevent someone from simply climbing out of it and continuing on their downward journey.’ ~ ibid
These comments are intelligent and thought provoking. They seem to me also to be inconsistent.
If a person is thwarted, then they don’t go home and find another method to kill themselves. By the same logic, one would expect that someone caught in a safety net would not simply climb out and continue his or her downward descent to oblivion.
What’s the reliable data here? How many humans go on to climb out of the safety net, throw themselves once more into the abyss and succeed in killing themselves?
Further, why can’t the exterior boom of the net itself have an insurmountably high safety fence, forcing the jumper back onto an enclosed walkway from where the only exit is back to where they started?
That way the jumper is caught in the net and can’t simply climb over the unclimbable fence to continue their descent even if they want to. Moreover, the net and the unscalable fence are out of sight, tucked below the bridge. Very expensive of course, and likely difficult to add as an afterthought to an existing structure.