Means Matters: Why conversations about reducing access is so important – with a very personal example

I came across this very insightful article on three methods of suicide prevention the other day. If this is an area of interest to you, I highly recommend you check it out. Anyway, one of the many things the article discussed was the importance of reducing access to deadly methods (or means) of suicide. The article made some points which I’d barely or never heard. In Sri Lanka, suicide numbers absolutely tanked after common types of pesticides (which were also common suicide methods) were banned. Suicide rates also dropped in England and Wales in the 1960s when domestic gas was switched to a formula with less carbon monoxide, and when more restrictions were placed on sedatives in Australia during the 60s and 70s.

From the article:

Those early observations are backed by a growing body of research that counters the popular misconception that people who attempt suicide once will keep trying, through whatever means necessary. The reality is that those in the grip of a suicidal crisis often can see only one way out—and if that route is barred, they’re unlikely to turn to another, says Jill Harkavy-Friedman, a clinical psychologist and vice president of research at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) in New York City.

In my legislative career, I was able to get an amendment passed to a bridge reconstruction bill which required that the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation consider adding protecting fencing to suicide hot spots during reconstruction or bridges or other high points. This was done for the exact reasons listed above – means reductions.

It seems as if every community has that place which is known for suicides – in Allentown, my home, it was the 8th Street Bridge. We lost one person every 1-2 months from that location. Then, during reconstruction a few years ago, protective fencing was added – and we haven’t lost a person at that spot since.

This is why there are so many legislative initiatives to reduce gun access for suicidal people via Red Flag laws. I don’t want to get into a debate about gun control, but the science on this issue is clear: Having a gun in a home is more likely to lead to suicides.

For those of you who are lucky enough to not understand, on an emotional level, what it is like to be depressed or suicide, allow me to try to explain. When you’re depressed, you are more than just sad or tired or miserable. Depending on your exact mood or the exact moment, you lose the ability to think clearly. Furthermore, depression isn’t a constant state – like any other emotional feeling, it ebbs and flows. There are moments it is manageable, and then, ten minutes later, you forget your wife, your kids, your loved ones, your career, your successes…you just want to end the pain. And in a bad moment, with the right triggers, yeah, you may grab whatever is easily accessible. If deadly means are available (and guns are the deadliest – 85% of all suicide attempts with a firearm result in a completed suicide), that may be the moment where you end your life.

My worst moment was in college. It was Freshman year, a few weeks back into my 2nd semester. I was a few weeks into anti-depressants for the first time in my life (which can be a moment where suicide risk increases – something I wish I had known then) and had just been rejected by a girl (appropriately on her part, as I wasn’t in a mental state in which I could handle a relationship at the time). The first semester had been a disaster for me – it resulted in an explosion of depression and anxiety attacks, my first time seeing a counselor, and my first experience with anti-depressants.

The night I got rejected by this girl. It was two in the morning or so, and I called my ex-girlfriend (who I was very close with, and in a complicated relationship with), crying. And in my hands, I had a bottle of my new anti-depressants and a glass of water. And I asked her why I shouldn’t end my life then and there.

I feel terrible about that moment. It was such an unfair burden to put on a 16 year old young woman. But she handled it gracefully and like someone with maturity well beyond her years, and she got me to put the pills down, and as I recall, refused to get off the phone with me until I got into bed. I think she actually had the number of our campus safety but couldn’t find it at that moment. And I think I fell asleep with my phone in my bed that night.

The purpose of this story isn’t just to thank my ex (though, as long as I’m on the subject, thanks very much!), but to prove a point. That moment was the worst in my life. That’s the closest I’ve ever come to suicide: Staring at a bottle of polls, and a glass of water, and wondering.

And I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if I’d had a gun. Because getting through that moment – and it was just a moment, a bad one, but not one to be repeated – gave me my life. My wife, my kids, and decades of joy and hope.

Means matter. Access to deadly means matters. And efforts to reduce suicide must incorporate means reduction. Doing so can help get a person through the most difficult moment in their life. And that may save a life.

 

 

One thought on “Means Matters: Why conversations about reducing access is so important – with a very personal example

  1. Every man has a right to takehis iwn life whatever his state of mind and whatever his reason. The state should make it easier and less painful rather than more difficilt. There is far too much government intervention in our lives as it is.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s