It’s Suicide Prevention Week – Except for Old, Ill and Physically Disabled People

I’m not sure how many people are aware of this, but we are nearing the end of National Suicide Prevention Week (Sept. 6-12). In fact, today – September 10 – is World Suicide Prevention Day.

For readers of this blog, it might have been easy to miss this important week. After all, there have been some strange acts of “recognition” in the press over the last week.

For example, on Tuesday, September 8, the pro-assisted suicide group Compassion & Choices issued a press release detailing and celebrating the body count under Washington State’s 6-month-old assisted suicide law. Apparently, there hasn’t been a lot of concern that a private political advocacy group now provides more information about implementation of the law than the state does.

In any case, it has meant that the news in Washington State during this Suicide Prevention Week has been dominated by discussion of the “success” of the law enabling the suicides of seriously ill (allegedly terminal) people in that state. Talk of suicide prevention? Practically nil.

In fact, today, World Suicide Prevention Day, The Columbian published an editorial praising the law and what the facts (as presented by Compassion & Choices) indicate to them about its success.

None of this surprises me. I also don’t expect any of the various suicide prevention groups to complain about the inappropriateness of exalting suicide during a week in which they’re trying to promote the value of prevention.

The reason I don’t expect any complaints from suicide prevention organizations is that – to me, at least – they’ve made it pretty clear that they’ve written off the lives of old, ill and physically disabled people as “acceptable losses.” I specify “physically disabled,” because having a label of psychiatric disability too often leads to indefinite terms of forced institutional treatment – with or without a wish to commit suicide. But it’s one thing to have concerns about excesses in the name of “prevention” and another thing to embrace the facilitation of suicides for select groups in the population.

Specifically, there is an appalling lack of voiced concern over the promotion of suicide in the populations of old, ill and physically disabled people. For the first few months of this year, there was nationwide coverage of the Final Exit Network – an organization that supports and facilitates the suicides of people with nonterminal disabilities and chronic conditions. Over the course of many months, stories appearing in countless outlets included the URL for the Final Exit Network in their stories. The website provided information on obtaining suicide instructional materials and how to get involved with the Final Exit Network. Most of the articles treated the Network and its “work” sympathetically.

In case you’re wondering, suicide prevention groups do get involved in media issues. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Suicide and Mental Health Association International both have sections devoted to media issues. Except for a brief mention of suicide increases related to publication of Derek Humphry’s book, Final Exit, there is no acknowledgment that the suicides of old, ill and physically disabled people are being facilitated and then covered in a way that legitimizes them in the press.

So it’s not like these organizations don’t get involved in breaking news or policy issues. Back in March of this year (while coverage of the Final Exit Network was running high), the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention issued a letter blasting Senator Charles Grassley for comments he made suggesting AIG executives should commit suicide, which he soon apologized for. In addition, the organization has actively been involved in the effort to install barriers on the Golden Gate Bridge to prevent suicides and issued a statement of concern over the movie “Seven Pounds,” in which the suicide of a young and healthy man was a crucial plot point.

To be fair, the Foundation and other organizations have expressed concerns about high rates of suicide among the elderly, but avoid discussion of the impact of the active promotion of assisted suicide – which has legitimized “fear of being a burden” and “loss of autonomy” as “rational” reasons to commit suicide (if you are old or ill, anyway).

But when it comes to coverage of the Final Exit Network, promotion of assisted suicide, and other issues – these organizations maintain a studied silence. And it’s a silence that speaks volumes to those of us who have been paying attention.

The complete absence of suicide prevention organizations from the public discussions of these issues sends a message: the suicides of the elderly, the ill, and people with disabilities aren’t their concern.

There could be many reasons for that. Perhaps they’re afraid that being critical of suicide promotion for these groups could alienate potential donors. Another possiblity is that there is division within the ranks of these groups – that some influential professionals believe that some lives aren’t worth saving – and that the suicides of old, ill and physically disabled people call for a different kind of response.

That response right now is silence. It may be a silence fueled by simple cowardice and political expediency. Or it could be something worse – that they really have written us off.

No way to know because they’re not talking. And up til now, everyone has been too polite to point out that this is an arena in which their voices belong.

I plan to revisit this topic. These organizations need to know that we are listening and watching.

Have a happy Suicide Prevention Week – for you young, healthy, nondisabled people that seem to be its only focus right now. For the rest of us, it’s just another week. –Stephen Drake