I don’t know where you think you’re getting this from but it’s wrong. Thinking of suicide without planning is sufficient in every definition I have ever seen and every definition I can find online. There is a typical distinction between active ideation and passive ideation, where the former includes planning—perhaps that is your confusion. Or perhaps you think a person with suicidal ideation must be suicidal; that isn’t the case.
Mental thoughts and images which hinge around committing suicide.
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine
recurring thoughts of or preoccupation with suicide
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health
Planning is definitely not necessary—as the term is often specifically opposed to planning. E.g. One of the DSM criteria for “Major Depressive Episode” is ” recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan”.
If suicidal ideation is a sign of clinical depression, does that mean that we can take the contrapositive and say that healthy people think about suicide very infrequently? I guess I understand that it’s not meant to be read as a pure logic statement, but is there room to talk about suicide without that “maybe get help plz” disclaimer? Does this mean that healthy people can participate in a discussion about suicide on an internet thread and put it out of their heads immediately?
I posted something about suicide on a personal journal (actually in response to this happy whale article) and had a well-meaning friend ask me if “I was okay” in this weird perfunctory way. Because her question wasn’t really enough to do any good if I wasn’t. Confuzzled!
I guess I understand that it’s not meant to be read as a pure logic statement, but is there room to talk about suicide without that “maybe get help plz” disclaimer?
The room to talk completely openly about the topic isn’t a public forum that people who google suicide might find.
In my time as forum moderator those people who threatened their own suicide usually weren’t established members but people who joined the forum specifically for that purpose.
It extremly emotionally challenging to have someone who first writes that they want to kill themselves and then writes that they drunk some poision. Do you try to contact some local authority in some Austrialian town and give them the IP address to handle the issue? Do you write some relative that you determined by looking at that persons facebook page that you got because they registered with their email address?
The best way to escape such issues is to try to convince the person to seek help. Better deal with the issue at an early stage than having to deal with it at a more explicit stage.
I posted something about suicide on a personal journal (actually in response to this happy whale article) and had a well-meaning friend ask me if “I was okay” in this weird perfunctory way. Because her question wasn’t really enough to do any good if I wasn’t.
If you weren’t okay that question might have lead to a discussion with your friend. That discussion might have helped you.
Okay, that is definitely a very good point. I understand that few people are equipped to deal with the reality of suicide and I agree that having a discussion in a public forum is unsettling to a lot of people. I wouldn’t want to discuss things with people that they are disturbed by. I also understand the functionality of the disclaimer. I think what I wanted to point out is that people who are prepared to have a discussion need to do a bit of extra work to advertise that they are open for the discussion after the disclaimer if by default we want to assume the everyone else would not want to handle such a discussion (because we wouldn’t want to inadvertently disturb people). It would be great if those spaces existed.
If you weren’t okay that question might have lead to a discussion with your friend. That discussion might have helped you.
That was kind of my point about the weirdness of the whole thing. She didn’t ask because she was sincerely prepared to help in any meaningful way and I know her well enough to know that it’s something she couldn’t handle. It was her misleading way of issuing that same disclaimer. If she was talking to someone else, they might have misinterpreted her completely.
I guess my general point is … uhh, social things are misleading and weird.
I think what I wanted to point out is that people who are prepared to have a discussion need to do a bit of extra work to advertise that they are open for the discussion after the disclaimer
The default internet disclaimer is to tell the person to seek professional help. If you don’t have health insurance and can’t speak to get an appointment with a psychologists there are services such as the Suicide Prevention Lifeline that you can call in the US under 1-800-273-8255.
It was her misleading way of issuing that same disclaimer. If she was talking to someone else, they might have misinterpreted her completely.
If she generally doesn’t feel good about having a discussion but would be willing to have a discussion if a life is at stake than it makes sense to word the disclaimer in a way where someone who’s seriously thinking about suicide sees that she addresses the issue but someone who isn’t seriously thinking about it, thinks it’s a casual remark.
If suicidal ideation is a sign of clinical depression, does that mean that we can take the contrapositive and say that healthy people think about suicide very infrequently?
Sure, probabilisticly: healthy people probably think about suicide much less, on average. There are exceptions, obviously.
but is there room to talk about suicide without that “maybe get help plz” disclaimer?
Talking about suicide is not at all the same as suicidal ideation. Also, I’m not at all averse to this discussion. A disclaimer doesn’t prohibit a conversation.
I guess that makes sense. I’ve either always interpreted those as conversation stoppers or they’ve actually been conversations stoppers in other situations I’ve observed them.
It’s still weird to me to think that it’s somehow “normal” to come away from conversations like this and not think about them later.
Talking about suicide is not at all the same as suicidal ideation.
Talking about suicide implies thoughts about suicide, and the definition of suicidal ideation Vaniver quoted says such thoughts demonstrate suicidal ideation. If so, talking about suicide implies suicidal ideation.
There are narrower definitions of suicidal ideation (e.g. the two you cited earlier) but I worry that broad definitions like Wikipedia’s prime people to interpret discussion about suicide in general as a reliable sign of suicidal ideation or being mentally unbalanced. jooyous might have a similar concern.
(I’m not saying you’re doing that in this case. Someone mentally simulating suicide on an ongoing basis clearly is engaging in suicidal ideation.)
I don’t know where you think you’re getting this from but it’s wrong. Thinking of suicide without planning is sufficient in every definition I have ever seen and every definition I can find online. There is a typical distinction between active ideation and passive ideation, where the former includes planning—perhaps that is your confusion. Or perhaps you think a person with suicidal ideation must be suicidal; that isn’t the case.
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health
Planning is definitely not necessary—as the term is often specifically opposed to planning. E.g. One of the DSM criteria for “Major Depressive Episode” is ” recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan”.
If suicidal ideation is a sign of clinical depression, does that mean that we can take the contrapositive and say that healthy people think about suicide very infrequently? I guess I understand that it’s not meant to be read as a pure logic statement, but is there room to talk about suicide without that “maybe get help plz” disclaimer? Does this mean that healthy people can participate in a discussion about suicide on an internet thread and put it out of their heads immediately?
I posted something about suicide on a personal journal (actually in response to this happy whale article) and had a well-meaning friend ask me if “I was okay” in this weird perfunctory way. Because her question wasn’t really enough to do any good if I wasn’t. Confuzzled!
The room to talk completely openly about the topic isn’t a public forum that people who google suicide might find. In my time as forum moderator those people who threatened their own suicide usually weren’t established members but people who joined the forum specifically for that purpose.
It extremly emotionally challenging to have someone who first writes that they want to kill themselves and then writes that they drunk some poision. Do you try to contact some local authority in some Austrialian town and give them the IP address to handle the issue? Do you write some relative that you determined by looking at that persons facebook page that you got because they registered with their email address?
The best way to escape such issues is to try to convince the person to seek help. Better deal with the issue at an early stage than having to deal with it at a more explicit stage.
If you weren’t okay that question might have lead to a discussion with your friend. That discussion might have helped you.
Okay, that is definitely a very good point. I understand that few people are equipped to deal with the reality of suicide and I agree that having a discussion in a public forum is unsettling to a lot of people. I wouldn’t want to discuss things with people that they are disturbed by. I also understand the functionality of the disclaimer. I think what I wanted to point out is that people who are prepared to have a discussion need to do a bit of extra work to advertise that they are open for the discussion after the disclaimer if by default we want to assume the everyone else would not want to handle such a discussion (because we wouldn’t want to inadvertently disturb people). It would be great if those spaces existed.
That was kind of my point about the weirdness of the whole thing. She didn’t ask because she was sincerely prepared to help in any meaningful way and I know her well enough to know that it’s something she couldn’t handle. It was her misleading way of issuing that same disclaimer. If she was talking to someone else, they might have misinterpreted her completely.
I guess my general point is … uhh, social things are misleading and weird.
The default internet disclaimer is to tell the person to seek professional help. If you don’t have health insurance and can’t speak to get an appointment with a psychologists there are services such as the Suicide Prevention Lifeline that you can call in the US under 1-800-273-8255.
If she generally doesn’t feel good about having a discussion but would be willing to have a discussion if a life is at stake than it makes sense to word the disclaimer in a way where someone who’s seriously thinking about suicide sees that she addresses the issue but someone who isn’t seriously thinking about it, thinks it’s a casual remark.
Sure, probabilisticly: healthy people probably think about suicide much less, on average. There are exceptions, obviously.
Talking about suicide is not at all the same as suicidal ideation. Also, I’m not at all averse to this discussion. A disclaimer doesn’t prohibit a conversation.
I guess that makes sense. I’ve either always interpreted those as conversation stoppers or they’ve actually been conversations stoppers in other situations I’ve observed them.
It’s still weird to me to think that it’s somehow “normal” to come away from conversations like this and not think about them later.
Talking about suicide implies thoughts about suicide, and the definition of suicidal ideation Vaniver quoted says such thoughts demonstrate suicidal ideation. If so, talking about suicide implies suicidal ideation.
There are narrower definitions of suicidal ideation (e.g. the two you cited earlier) but I worry that broad definitions like Wikipedia’s prime people to interpret discussion about suicide in general as a reliable sign of suicidal ideation or being mentally unbalanced. jooyous might have a similar concern.
(I’m not saying you’re doing that in this case. Someone mentally simulating suicide on an ongoing basis clearly is engaging in suicidal ideation.)
So someone who volunteers at a suicide hotline regularly automatically meets one criteria for ‘major depressive episode’?
Thinking about other people committing suicide is different from thinking about doing it yourself.