|
Post by Admin on Sept 7, 2020 14:02:33 GMT
Should You Ever Ask Someone “Are You Suicidal?” www.madinamerica.com/2020/05/ever-ask-someone-suicidal/The standard conversation that typically ensues when an individual inquires, “Should I ever ask someone if they’re suicidal” centers around the myth that asking a person such a question might potentially be the cause of them reaching that state; as if the mere utterance of the word itself somehow makes someone more susceptible to a suicide infection of sorts. That’s nonsense. Most of us know that. But, there is a much deeper conversation to be had here. Specifically, even if we all fully accept that asking someone if they’re suicidal does not magically make them so, does that necessarily mean it’s a good idea? The implication from the suicide preventionists who spend substantial time disabusing people of the aforementioned myth is that asking this question is basically the best idea ever. Gatekeepers unite! (Yuk.) And yet, I’m not so sure. It’s true that some people have said that being asked that question and answering it honestly was a “weight off their shoulders.” It gave them space to finally acknowledge their own personal elephant, and shrink it down to a more manageable size simply by speaking the words out loud. But that’s only a fraction of the story. It doesn’t change another, somewhat separate truth: The question itself has long since become corrupt. For every person “Are you suicidal?” may assist, there are many more of us who are scared into silence when those words are uttered. Why? Well, “Are you suicidal?” is, in fact, the king of the suicide risk assessment questionnaire, with “Do you have a plan” serving as its beloved queen. Too many of us now know that those questions don’t typically come from the mouths of people who are invested in more than whether or not we need to be controlled and locked away. As such, “Are you suicidal?” has become the red, neon, flashing sign that screams “Stop! Don’t talk to me!” Perhaps this might just explain some of why suicide risk assessments are well known not to work. It’s interesting that risk assessment is always seen as a one-way street: The professional evaluates the (so-called) “client” (or “consumer,” or “patient,” or “peer”… don’t get me started…) for “risk to self or others.” But, what of the risk posed to us by those seen as there to “help”? Given that force (including coercion), and being held on a psychiatric unit are both associated with increased risk of death by one’s own hand, the risk posed to us by providers (and those who see their roles as deferring to them) can be great. Saying “Yes, I am suicidal” to the wrong person can be the precise precursor to loss of job, relationships, identity, and freedom. Studies now abound that tell us that even being quarantined against one’s will in a cushy hotel or one’s own home can have long-lasting emotional impacts, and psychiatric facilities are usually a hell of a lot worse than all that. No wonder that question sends so many of us running in the opposite direction. The truth is that the best way to create space for taboo topics like suicide to be discussed is not to hammer away at them, or try to force them open, but rather to build trust and create space for the conversation to move naturally where the person wants it to go. Such a process often allows for not only the answer to that question to be revealed but also for the much more important “why” to rise to the surface. This concept is, in fact, what underlies the Alternatives to Suicide approach. www.dropbox.com/s/lwohvv9x481ihau/Additional%20References%20about%20suicide%20Convos.docx?dl=0www.dropbox.com/s/7mg18jdxwk1fjo9/Articles%20on%20suicide%20and%20self%20injury%20Convos.docx?dl=0An Overview of the "Alternatives to Suicide" Approach Publication Date: July 31, 2020 mhttcnetwork.org/centers/new-england-mhttc/product/overview-alternatives-suicide-approachThe Alternatives to Suicide Approach - Paradigm Shifts Rooted in Peer Support Values www.youtube.com/watch?v=64YdGeaG5yI
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 10, 2020 17:36:06 GMT
A new study in Medical Anthropology Quarterly’s fall issue explores the impact of a Native Hawaiian therapeutic practice known as ‘caring with aloha’ on suicide prevention. The results of the qualitative inquiry suggest that this indigenous approach prioritizes the narrative and lived experience of the suicidal person, which may genuinely be preventative, rather than merely interventive. The study author, Lauren Krishnamurti, an anthropologist at the University of Pittsburgh, argues that suicide prevention in the United States is primarily an interventional rather than truly preventative model of care. By contrast, the indigenous Hawaiian practice addresses suicide “through social support: promoting the value of life, offering hope or positive coping strategies, community building, and so on.” www.madinamerica.com/2020/09/indigenous-approaches-suicide-prevention-may-offer-advantages-mainstream-models/Original Article The Potential of “Watchful” Care: Preventing Suicide with Aloha in Hawaii anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/maq.12610
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 10, 2020 17:39:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 11, 2020 3:06:12 GMT
What Suicide Prevention Should Really Look Like themighty.com/2020/09/making-suicide-prevention-accessible/With World Suicide Prevention Day on September 10th, there is a ton of content online about reaching out for help if you’re struggling, or reaching out to a friend if you think they are struggling. This is important — it helps highlight resources for people who are in crisis and brings awareness to services that exist to provide immediate intervention for people who need it. But that’s what it is: it’s intervention, not prevention. By that point, it’s too late. When we think of suicide prevention, there are a million things we can consider before it’s at a crisis point. Crisis lines are an emergency intervention that are often way over capacity, leading to high wait times. We always say help is available to those struggling, but we don’t spend enough time highlighting how those services may not be enough. Encountering a wait time when in a crisis or when you’re in desperate need of support can be extremely detrimental and further feelings of hopelessness. The second consideration is that even if you make it through the wait time, a crisis line cannot provide ongoing, consistent support for people dealing with suicidal ideation. Unfortunately, there is a misconception that suicidal ideation is a one-time thing, and as soon as that crisis is averted, everything is OK. But suicidal ideation can be chronic, and it can’t be resolved with one crisis chat. I’m not saying crisis lines are bad — they are vital tools for saving lives and deserve as much funding as possible, but to think of them as the only answer for suicide prevention overburdens them unfairly. So let’s start with the absolute basics of suicide prevention. Suicide prevention looks a lot like trying to fulfill the most basic levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Adequate housing, a secure enough basic income, access to food, water and other basic necessities are all absolutely necessary parts of suicide prevention. These are parts of the lowest levels of Maslow’s hierarchy: physiological and safety needs. Why don’t we think of these as suicide prevention though? Why don’t we make the obvious connection that having your basic needs met can make you feel more secure or safe and less suicidal? What about access to a stable job that is accommodating and understanding of mental health needs? Now say we get beyond fulfilling those basic needs, but a person is still dealing with suicidal ideation (which is completely normal and possible — many people can still struggle with suicidal ideation or mental illness and have all of their most basic needs met). What about the next level of Maslow’s hierarchy of Love and Belonging? There are numerous studies that indicate minority stress, being higher baseline levels of stress due to being part of a minority, can lead to more negative health outcomes. There are reasons why trans folks, Black people and Indigenous people have some of the highest rates of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. It’s because our society excludes certain groups and doesn’t make them feel like they belong. We can’t talk about suicide prevention without talking about how more marginalized groups are at more significant disadvantages and are at a much higher risk of suicide. Anti-racism, anti-oppression, acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community and conversations around intersectionality have to be included in discussions of suicide prevention. Furthermore, we often don’t make it safe for people who deal with thoughts of suicide to talk to their friends and loved ones about it. We make it so easy to talk about a broken arm or a flu we’re dealing with, yet it’s much harder to get support when our mind isn’t feeling OK vs. our body. This further alienates people dealing with suicidal ideation, breeds shame and loneliness, and increases feelings of not belonging or being loved. And even if we address all those needs: physiological, safety, belonging etc, we still need to address the issue of access to help. When we say help is available to those struggling, we don’t think enough about if that help is truly accessible. Some people may need medication like anti-depressants, but without a good insurance plan, that can cost a lot of money and cause financial strain. For many people, ongoing therapy is a critical part of dealing with suicidal ideation, but can cost more than $200 a session. Free programs often have long waiting lists, and you can’t just put your suicidal ideation on the back burner until a spot opens up. If you’re lucky enough to get a spot in a free program, it’s often group-based and not individualized, and support only lasts a certain number of weeks. If you’re still struggling beyond the end of the program, you have to find additional supports. People trying to get help often run into roadblock after roadblock trying to navigate complex, overburdened, underfunded and expensive mental health systems. Creating accessible systems with the type of support people need when they need it is a vital part of suicide prevention. Suicide prevention is so much more than a number to call when a person is already in such a state they need a crisis intervention, and it’s time we start looking at suicide prevention along a significant timeline vs. a single moment in time. If we focus on ensuring people have access to proper help and their basic needs met, with the customized support they need, we may have a better chance of handling the suicide epidemic we are currently facing. Suicide prevention must evolve to be more holistic and all encompassing so we can prevent folks from getting to a point where suicide is even an option on the table.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 13, 2020 13:03:53 GMT
September 10 is World Suicide Prevention Day. Many NGOs, politicians, and corporations will release statements on the need to raise awareness around individual mental health. But they only pay lip service to a deeply systemic issue that is rooted in the injustices and exploitation of capitalism. Capitalism Caused the Suicide Epidemic. We Must Overthrow It www.leftvoice.org/capitalism-caused-the-suicide-epidemic-we-must-overthrow-it“Instead of accepting the vast privatization of stress that has taken place over the last thirty years, we need to ask: how has it become acceptable that so many people, and especially so many young people, are ill? The ‘mental health plague’ in capitalist societies would suggest that, instead of being the only social system that works, capitalism is inherently dysfunctional, and that the cost of it appearing to work is very high.” — Mark Fisher (Capitalist Realism, 2009) Every year on September 10, people around the world observe World Suicide Prevention Day. Organizations such as the World Health Organization and others use the day to build awareness about the causes, signs, and ways to prevent suicide. But these efforts at best attempt to put a bandaid on a deeply complicated issue and at worst obfuscate the material conditions and systemtic factors that contribute to rising rates of suicide around the world. . When confronting the underlying causes of the horrifically high rates of suicide, we have to understand that capitalism is the root cause of many deaths by suicide, as well as the lack of resources to help people who are struggling. As such, we need to fight to prevent suicide with an anti-capitalist perspective. Contrary to messaging from many non-profits and government organizations, suicide prevention should not be — cannot be — an individualized task. It is not, as many suggest, the job solely of individuals to check in on their loved ones and ensure that they have the help they need. By that same token, it cannot be the sole responsibility of the person who is struggling to find help for themselves. Rather, we must understand that we have a collective societal responsibility to look after those who are confronting a mental health crisis. Given this, any conversation about suicide prevention must center the need to construct a society that is designed to aid people rather than exploit them. Because at every turn, the capitalist state has failed us. It has left us to die, to mourn our loved ones, so long as we continue to make our bosses money. Unsurprisingly, the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting economic crisis are increasing suicide rates to an alarming degree. A study published in August reported that 25.5 percent of people aged 18 to 24 said that they had seriously considered suicide in the last 30 days. Like other public health crises, suicide disproportionately impacts marginalized communities. 41 percent of trans* adults report having attempted suicide while the suicide rate for Native youth is 2.5 times higher than the national average. As the economic crisis worsens and more people lose their jobs and homes, millions more will die as the rates of suicide continue to rise. Worsening material conditions will lead to increased suicide rates among vulnerable, exploited, and oppressed people in particular. Studies show a strong association between poverty and youth suicide rates, and about 30 percent of those who die by suicide are unemployed. This shows that suicide is not the inevitable result of a personal psychological problem but, rather, a reaction to despair caused by material conditions. It is not merely a personal decision but a symptom of a larger societal problem. That capitalists and their governments are responsible for these deaths must never be forgotten. In the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the government has not forgiven rent, has not cancelled student loans, has not provided free healthcare, has not extended livable unemployment, and has done nothing to protect the millions of jobs that were lost. It is true, of course, that suicide has a variety of causes including both material conditions and underlying mental health struggles, and it is overly simplistic to lay the entiriety of the blame for suicides at the feet of capitalism. However, capitalism has created oppressive and alienating conditions while at the same time systematically depriving people of necessary resources. This is especially acute in the United States where healthcare is privatized and mental health care is harder to obtain than it is elsewhere. Given this, any discussion of mental health and suicide prevention must acknowledge that we will never be able to truly care for people and prevent suicide under capitalism. As long as people are exploited, alientated from their labor, oppressed, and deprived of resources by the state, there will be a suicide epidemic. This is not to claim that, on the day after the revolution, all mental health struggles will disappear. Far from it. But the way that our society currently addresses these issues is, to paraphrase the Mark Fisher, inherently dysfunctional. For capitalists, millions of suicide deaths per year is a small price to pay to maintain their power and profits. Every year around September 10, a plethora of companies, business leaders, and officials release statements or products to support suicide prevention. Vice President Mike Pence’s wife Karen Pence, a teacher at a school that explicitly excludes LGBTQ+ students and staff tweeted out her support for suicide prevention on September 1, saying that it is an “important time to recognize suicide as a public health issue.” In 2017, even Donald Trump himself issued a statement recognizing World Suicide Prevention Day which said that, “As a Nation, we must strive to prevent heartbreaking loss of life caused by suicides.” Last year, Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services likewise tweeted his support. This shows the limits of a suicide “prevention” that isn’t explicitly anti-capitalist. Of course, almost no one would say that they oppose suicide prevention efforts. But when it comes time to support even the most moderate policies to actually prevent suicide, they merely pay lip service to the issue, hiding beyind empty slogans and instead put profits over human lives. Famed labor organizer Mother Jones famously said that we must “pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living.” Too many people have already mourned losses and too many more will be mourning in the coming crisis. To honor their legacy, to demand justice for the lives lost, we must fight with every ounce of our resolve against the system of capitalism. Capitalism has damned us to a system of crippling debt, unwavering exploitation, and failing social services. We owe it to ourselves, to all those who are struggling, and to all of those who have died to be relentless in our fight. The suicide epidemic is preventable only by creating a society where people aren’t alienated from their labor, have much better material conditions, and free access to health care — including mental health care. This is the world that we fight for. This year on World Suicide Prevention Day, let us re-affirm our commitment to fighting for a better world against the capitalists and their governments.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 14, 2020 14:56:45 GMT
“Why are mass market media campaigns so popular in spite of the fact there is no evidence they work and evidence they don’t? Money. It is very easy and profitable for a mental health provider to write a brochure, produce a PSA, rather than try to reduce suicide. By putting their logo on the materials they increase their visibility and self-importance. As one suicide researcher concluded, “The conflict between political convenience and scientific adequacy in suicide prevention is usually resolved in favor of the former. Thus, strategies targeting the general population instead of high-risk groups (psychiatric patients recently discharged from hospital, suicide attempters, etc.) may be chosen…especially if the desired outcomes also include a number of conditions frequently associated with suicidal behaviors (such as poor quality of life, social isolation, unemployment and substance misuse).” (Diego de Leo 2002) How to reduce suicide One effective suicide prevention strategy is means removal: putting locks on guns, medicine cabinets and drawers containing knives. (Yip, et al. 2012). However, the mental health industry has largely been unwilling to give up funds they can use to create TV ads featuring their logo in order to fund suicide means reduction. California did authorize the use of mental health dollars to fund a net under the Golden Gate Bridge. But that was largely a PR ploy to defuse criticism of massive waste in California’s Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) fund which is supposed to fund services for the seriously ill. (Mental Illness Policy Org. August, 2013) California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg claimed “Proposition 63’s contribution to suicide prevention at the Golden Gate Bridge will probably become its most publicly recognizable benefit.” (Steinberg 2014). It is also known and ignored that those who are most likely to commit suicide are those who have previously attempted suicide, first-degree relatives of those who completed suicide, and persons with serious mental illness. (Tsuang 1983), These individuals, by name, are likely known to the mental health system as a result of their suicide or family histories. Intensive follow up of these individuals, rather than the general public, would be a much more efficient and effective way for the industry to reduce suicide.” CENTER FOR HEALTH JOURNALISM MEMBER POSTS Preventing suicide in all the wrong ways By DJ Jaffe September 09, 2014 www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/2014/09/09/preventing-suicide-all-wrong-waysIt's Suicide Prevention Week and advocates are busy conducting suicide awareness campaigns. But there is not evidence that awareness reduces suicide. More effective suicide prevention approaches are being ignored. Suicide is rare among the general population. It is more common, but still rare, among people with serious mental illness. There are about 38,000 successful suicides per year (American Foundation for Suicide Prevention 2010). There are at least 380,000 attempts. The lifetime risk to those with schizophrenia is only 5%. (Hor and Taylor 2010). The lifetime risk to those with bipolar is only 10-15%. (Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2014). Mental health advocates regularly overstate the prevalence of suicide and attempts among persons with mental illness. At the high end, the National Alliance on Mental Illness claims, “More than 90% of youth suicide victims have at least one major psychiatric disorder.” (National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) 2013) Mental Health America, a trade association for providers of mental ‘health’ services estimates “30% to 70% of suicide victims suffer from major depression or bipolar (manic-depressive) disorder” (Mental Health America n.d.). But suicide is not always the irrational act of a sick mind. Mental illness in people who commit suicide is often diagnosed after the fact. After someone takes his or her own life, we look for a cause. If they take their life after having had lost their spouse or job, received a bad grade in school or received a new medical diagnosis we chalk it up to depression and put the suicide in the mental illness column. In spite of being overstated, it is clear that suicide does disproportionately affect people with mental illness. Dr. E. Fuller Torrey looked at studies of the prevalence of suicide among the seriously mentally ill and studies of the prevalence of serious mental illness among those who suicide, two sides of the same coin, and in both cases found about 5,000 of the 38,000 suicides (about 14%) were in people with serious mental illness. This is three times as high as the general population. (Torrey n.d.).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 21, 2020 15:31:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 24, 2020 19:39:32 GMT
Suicidal Thoughts, Psychiatric Diagnosis, and What Really Helps: Part One This piece is the first of a two-part essay about suicide, diagnosis, what doesn't help, and what does help. This part is about suicide, diagnosis, and some of what fails to help. www.madinamerica.com/2020/09/suicidal-thoughts-part-one/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 25, 2020 17:41:41 GMT
Suicidal Thoughts, Psychiatric Diagnosis, and What Really Helps: Part Two This piece is the second of a two-part essay about suicide, diagnosis, what doesn't help, and what does help. This part is about barriers to seeking help and about the ways we actually can be of help to people who are considering suicide. www.madinamerica.com/2020/09/suicidal-thoughts-part-two/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 26, 2020 11:55:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 14, 2020 17:22:10 GMT
The Smoldering Wick: Suicide and Faith www.madinamerica.com/2020/10/smoldering-wick-suicide-faith/In Acts 16:26 of the New Testament, Saint Paul and Silas were in prison when the prison doors miraculously flew open. “When the jailer woke up and saw the prison doors wide open, he drew [his] sword and was about to kill himself, thinking that the prisoners had escaped.” Selflessly, rather than in anger against someone who had held him captive without good cause, St. Paul “shouted out in a loud voice, ‘Do no harm to yourself; we are all here.’” The jailer in that moment decides not to commit suicide. He instead asks them, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” The Bible only tells of St. Paul’s initial words to the jailer. It doesn’t give all of the specifics as to what precisely gave the suicidal jailer hope. I view St. Paul as usually being sincere in wanting to help people. A lot of people don’t care if someone else is suicidal, even if that person has done nothing wrong to them. Some people do care, and some of them believe in the mental health industry for the suicidal, which may or may not help someone. It may even do more harm than good. Some mental health professionals do care about suicidal people. Some of them care more about their income and status than they do for the desperate person sitting in front of them. Some suicidal people may only benefit from the extraordinary selflessness and profound empathy demonstrated by St. Paul to his jailer. Credentials don’t measure for that.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 7, 2020 21:14:06 GMT
In a new article published in the Journal of Prevention and Health Promotion, counseling psychologist John Westefeld of the University of Iowa describes how we can begin to understand suicide and suicide prevention as a social justice issue. Westefeld offers a nuanced analysis of the term ‘social justice’ and a thoughtful discussion concerning the intersection of social justice and suicide prevention. “The central thesis presented is that suicide—especially suicide prevention—is a social justice issue.” Moving Toward a Social Justice Approach to Suicide Prevention A new understanding of social justice and suicide prevention is needed to better address rising suicide rates in the United States.www.madinamerica.com/2020/11/moving-toward-social-justice-approach-suicide-prevention/He finishes the article with implications and recommendations. Suicide prevention should focus on multiculturalism to better address unique system-level stressors for certain groups of people and individual identities. Access to means must be significantly restricted, in particular, handguns. “There is a strong positive relationship between firearm access and suicidal risk.” Not only is a gun deadlier than other means of suicide, but at-risk groups such as veterans are also more likely to own a gun than other groups of people. There needs to be more research done on suicide prevention. “Both qualitative and quantitative studies are needed so that more can be learned about risk and prevention effectiveness, as well as what can be done to increase advocacy.” When training individuals on suicidality and suicide prevention, there needs to be a discussion of advocacy and the social justice components of suicide prevention. Trainers also ought to be aware of their own biases and privileges. Lastly, given that COVID-19 affects different groups of people disproportionality, in ways not dissimilar to other injustices, action should be taken to prepare for a unique kind of suicidality that may erupt in the coronavirus’ aftermath. Suicide Prevention: An Issue of Social JusticeJohn S. WestefeldFirst Published July 29, 2020 Research Article doi.org/10.1177/2632077020946419journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2632077020946419Abstract The concept of social justice has assumed major significance in the human service professions, as suicide rates have increased. However, social justice remains a difficult concept to define. This article explores definitions of social justice, as well as the intersection of social justice and suicide prevention. A review of suicide prevention programs is presented, including both systemic prevention programs and individual prevention strategies. This evolves into a discussion concerning why suicide prevention is in fact a very significant social justice issue. Finally, implications for mental health professionals, including counseling psychologists, the profession that originated this journal, are examined, and suggestions for future issues of focus related to the intersection of suicide prevention and social justice are presented. To take a social justice approach to suicide prevention, it is suggested that an interdisciplinary structure be utilized to maximize political action.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 25, 2020 16:36:31 GMT
Rethinking Suicide Prevention: An Interview on Critical Suicide Studies with Jennifer WhiteBy Samantha Lilly -November 25, 2020 www.madinamerica.com/2020/11/rethinking-suicide-prevention-interview-critical-suicide-studies-jennifer-white/Jennifer White is one of the founders of the Critical Suicidology Network, a growing international network of scholars interested in exploring alternatives to biomedical approaches to suicide prevention. Critical suicidology brings together persons with lived experience, mental health professionals, researchers, and activists “to rethink what it means to study suicide and enact practices of suicide prevention in more diverse and creative, less psycho-centric and less depoliticized, ways.” She is a Professor in the School of Child and Youth Care at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. She has practiced as a counselor, educator, researcher, and advocate. White served for seven years as the Director of the Suicide Prevention Center in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of British Columbia. She has written numerous articles and book chapters on suicide and self-harm and has co-authored two books: Child and youth care: Critical perspectives on pedagogy, practice and policy (2011), and Critical suicidology: Transforming suicide research and prevention for the 21st century (2016). Her current research focus centers itself around the contemporary discourse of youth suicide prevention, seeking alternatives to one-size-fits-all approaches. She is currently leading a Wise Practices for Life Promotion project funded by the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch (FNIHB) of Health Canada. This project seeks to curate a series of wise practices for promoting life based on what is already working and/or showing promise in First Nations communities across the country. She is also conducting a study with family counselors to learn more about the challenges and opportunities they face with youth suicide prevention and the organizational conditions that support them to be most effective in their work.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 30, 2020 9:49:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 30, 2020 19:08:33 GMT
If antidepressant drugs worked to reduce suicide, we should see a decrease in suicide rates when antidepressants began to be widely adopted. This should be true around 1960 when the first-generation drugs emerged and even more pronounced around 1990 when the SSRIs exploded in popularity. To test this, researchers looked at suicide rates in three countries—Italy, Austria, and Switzerland—over time. They found that there was no association between these time periods and suicide rates. The drugs did not appreciably change suicide rates at all. “The introduction of antidepressants around 1960 and the sharp increase in prescriptions after 1990 with the introduction of the SSRIs did not coincide with trend changes in suicide rates in Italy, Austria or Switzerland,” the researchers write. Suicide Rates Did Not Decrease When Antidepressant Drugs Were IntroducedSuicide rates were already declining before antidepressants were widely prescribed, so “logic dictates that antidepressant prescription cannot be the cause of the declining suicide rates during that period.” www.madinamerica.com/2020/11/suicide-rates-not-decrease-antidepressantdrugs-introduced/Amendola, S., Plöderl, M., & Hengartner, M. P. (2020). Did the introduction and increased prescribing of antidepressants lead to changes in long-term trends of suicide rates? European Journal of Public Health, ckaa204. Published on 25 November 2020. doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa204 (Link) Did the introduction and increased prescribing of antidepressants lead to changes in long-term trends of suicide rates? Simone Amendola, Martin Plöderl, Michael P Hengartner European Journal of Public Health, ckaa204, doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa204Published: 25 November 2020 academic.oup.com/eurpub/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa204/6000721Abstract Background Ecological studies have explored associations between suicide rates and antidepressant prescriptions in the population, but most of them are limited as they analyzed short-term correlations that may be spurious. The aim of this long-term study was to examine whether trends in suicide rates changed in three European countries when the first antidepressants were introduced in 1960 and when prescription rates increased steeply after 1990 with the introduction of the serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Methods Data were extracted from the WHO Mortality Database. Suicide rates were calculated for people aged 10–89 years from 1951–2015 for Italy, 1955–2016 for Austria and 1951–2013 for Switzerland. Trends in suicide rates stratified by gender were analyzed using joinpoint regression models. Results There was a general pattern of long-term trends that was broadly consistent across all three countries. Suicide rates were stable or decreasing during the 1950s and 1960s, they rose during the 1970s, peaked in the early 1980s and thereafter they declined. There were a few notable exceptions to these general trends. In Italian men, suicide rates increased until 1997, then fell sharply until 2006 and increased again from 2006 to 2015. In women from all three countries, there was an extended period during the 2000s when suicide rates were stable. No trend changes occurred around 1960 or 1990. Conclusions The introduction of antidepressants around 1960 and the sharp increase in prescriptions after 1990 with the introduction of the SSRIs did not coincide with trend changes in suicide rates in Italy, Austria or Switzerland.
|
|