One flaw with the analogy is that a pretty significant portion of suicides (successful or attempts) are impulsive. Many people who attempt it have literally no idea they will when they wake up that morning.
A 2001 University of Houston study of survivors of near lethal attempts showed that 70% of them had only decided to do it an hour or less before the attempt, and 24 percent had only spent 5 minutes before the attempt.
If when attempting it, they discover that their chosen method won't work for some reason, many will just give up on killing themselves rather than looking for an alternative measure.
This has been reliably seen many times. If a change is made such that one suicide method becomes unfeasible, the overall attempt rate drops. If one were committed to offing oneself it is almost impossible to stop them, as there are countless ways to do it. But the statistics are very clear that if some method is removed, alternatives are not always used.
The British had an issue with people killing themselves with oven fumes, back when the ovens used coal gas which created a lot of carbon monoxide, with this accounting for about 50% of suicide deaths. When things were changed to use natural gas where this approach does not work, suicides dropped by 30%. Obviously while that means a portion ending up using some other method, many others simply never killed themselves.
Of 515 people prevented by police from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge between 1937 and 1971, by the end of the 70s only 6% of them had committed suicide by other means.
Weirdly even some of the non-impulsive cases where people had planned an attempt for days or weeks just give up if their plan is foiled, rather than coming up with some alternative method.
Now obviously not everybody is like this. Some people will continue to try over and over until they succeed. But the numbers suggest that those are very much a minority.
> One flaw with the analogy [...] Many people who attempt it have literally no idea they will when they wake up that morning.
Can you elaborate? That sounds pretty much like the people in the analogy to me. They jump because the alternative they face right now is more terrifying for some reason. It makes sense that not all methods of suicide fulfill that criteria (being less terrifying than the alternative), even if they are all methods to end your life.
I reacted the same way when I read that part too, but the rest of the comment illustrates it well with the failed attempts data.
To go back to the analogy, it's as if they try to jump from the window, but there's a safety net that blocks them. They're stuck inside and the fire is mysteriously gone.
I don't think the fire is mysteriously gone in this imagining of the analogy. More like it is still there, but is survivable: still very hot, still very scary, but not clearly moving to inevitably consume you. I think this is just another place where the analogy breaks down. But that's ok, no analogy is perfect, but I think this one does have its uses.
I still think the original analogy works here - if you make sure that in the moment of panic the windows don't open to prevent voluntary and quick death, the person now has to suffer the agonizing pain of the flames for the rest of their life.
It holds even more true if we consider that a large part of suicides are not because someone wants to die - no - it's because someone does not want to live like in present situation anymore. Just like with the fire, the goal is not to die on a sidewalk - it's not dying in the fire. You attempt suicide as last resort - if you die, it's okay, it's final. If you don't, it perhaps changes something for the better.
> The British had an issue with people killing themselves with oven fumes, back when the ovens used coal gas which created a lot of carbon monoxide, with this accounting for about 50% of suicide deaths.
This detail is a little wrong or at least confusing. The coal gas (typically called "Town gas") was about 10-20% carbon monoxide, along with hydrogen, and other flammable gases. When set aflame in a ventilated room, the carbon monoxide burns - like the other gases - producing mostly carbon dioxide which is still slightly poisonous but since we breathe huge amounts of it already it's not near the top of your list of problems.
In this era British people (maybe 1000 per year or so) commit suicide by turning on the gas supply to an oven but not lighting it. The phrase "stick my head in the oven" signifies suicide for this reason, the implication is not that you would cook your head, but that you would deliberately breathe the poisonous carbon monoxide and die.
Having been there personally and spent time with others in by same place: it probably can't be anything but "impulsive" for most people. It really is a "hang on til it hurts too much", reasons for/against tend to come and go, and the decision can be made/unmade all the time.
This is human behaviour, and causality is really not as simple as wanking some stats around and making a bunch of super tenuous inference. 'fuck outta here with that reductionist bullshit.
> Of 515 people prevented by police from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge between 1937 and 1971, by the end of the 70s only 6% of them had committed suicide by other means.
Perhaps much of that is because they got the help they needed following the incident. It probably also helps that they were a group made up of those who were able to be persuaded by police to not jump in the first place already showing at least some willingness to keep living.
Note, also, the prerequisite: For the police to talk them down they must have been on the brink but not jumped for some time, otherwise the police wouldn't be there to talk them down.
I don't think the ones that are talked down are a remotely representative sample.
Right- any studies on the mindset of those who attempt suicide and survive, or those who attempt but are talked down by responders or family/friends are obviously tainted by survivorship bias.
Throwaway for obvious reasons; i tried to kill myself and ended up in the icu for 3 days. i stood up because i didn't want to live any longer, took 3 bottles of anti depressants, and laid down to die. Luckily my girlfriend found me and cashed 911. I was depressed, i was taking anti depressants, but i wouldn't say the description in the original quote was accurate for my case, i didn't have a slow declinr into it. It was like a switch flipped in my head and i wanted to die, but now even when life is the hardest i wouldn't consider suicide, so it kinda was like a suicide vaccine for me.
One of the best posts ever here on HN on a difficult topic.
Lots of personal experience here (family). The suicidal 'mode' needs to be interrupted before death. Usually it lasts only an hour or two.
Helping one interrupt that mode is a learned skill that is very effective, and relatively easy to do.
This isn't universal of course, just my experience. If anyone reading this suspects someone is suicidal and they don't answer the phone at a time you know they are at risk, go see them asap. You might save a life.
These are great points but I don't see them as conflicting with the analogy. The suffering DFW refers to that drives someone to suicide is something felt in the moment. He contrasts the impulsive decision to die with deciding the same based on some balance sheet of suffering.
You are reducing things to statistics at the detriment to a large number of people.
You are responding to a thread of someone not like what you described, who exists in great numbers as well. The two examples you presented are wildly different: Britain's suicide rate dropped 30% and now they are at square zero again how to prevent all those suicides that keep happening!
The point of even talking about it is to show how useless telling someone "hey just call this phone number, because I care about you, well I don't actually know you but I avoid the topic of suicide" is just as useless as the people on the ground telling someone not to jump from a burning building.
Even if they don't jump (or do call the suicide prevention number), the fire is still there (the underlying problem is unresolved and still not reconcilable)
A 2001 University of Houston study of survivors of near lethal attempts showed that 70% of them had only decided to do it an hour or less before the attempt, and 24 percent had only spent 5 minutes before the attempt.
If when attempting it, they discover that their chosen method won't work for some reason, many will just give up on killing themselves rather than looking for an alternative measure.
This has been reliably seen many times. If a change is made such that one suicide method becomes unfeasible, the overall attempt rate drops. If one were committed to offing oneself it is almost impossible to stop them, as there are countless ways to do it. But the statistics are very clear that if some method is removed, alternatives are not always used.
The British had an issue with people killing themselves with oven fumes, back when the ovens used coal gas which created a lot of carbon monoxide, with this accounting for about 50% of suicide deaths. When things were changed to use natural gas where this approach does not work, suicides dropped by 30%. Obviously while that means a portion ending up using some other method, many others simply never killed themselves.
Of 515 people prevented by police from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge between 1937 and 1971, by the end of the 70s only 6% of them had committed suicide by other means.
Weirdly even some of the non-impulsive cases where people had planned an attempt for days or weeks just give up if their plan is foiled, rather than coming up with some alternative method.
Now obviously not everybody is like this. Some people will continue to try over and over until they succeed. But the numbers suggest that those are very much a minority.