Thread by @ProfLAppleby

No shortage of social media comment about suicide over the weekend but few researchers joined in & those who did called for caution from everyone else.

And with good reason. Research evidence warns that media coverage can put others at risk. jech.bmj.com/content/57/4/2…

Thread/1

Main concern is imitative suicide, when one death leads to another in similar circumstances. Imitative suicide happens when the second person identifies with the first. It is more likely in young people and after the deaths of celebrities. /2

This isn’t to say that just by hearing of a suicide we can become suicidal ourselves. It means that a distressed person may feel a connection with someone who has taken their own life & that perceived bond can even extend to how they died. /3

Which is why @samaritans media guidance asks the press when reporting a suicide not to discuss the apparent reasons for it. Firstly, because suicide is complex and few know the full picture of what is happening in a person’s life. /4 samaritans.org/about-samarita…

Second, reporting the presumed causes often provides an over-simplified narrative, blaming stresses - loss of job, relationship break-up - that are easily identified with. As a result suicide becomes an understandable, even logical, outcome for someone in the same predicament. /5

Most journalists comply with @samaritans guidance. But some don’t, claiming public interest. Guidance has no legal force, though the editors’ code of practice, which warns against “excessive detail”, does. Sensitive reporting appears in suicide prevention strategies worldwide. /6

None of this applies to social media where most “reporters” are members of the public. At the weekend thousands of us read what others had written. If we have guidance to help journalists comment sensitively, why not for the general public? /7

I should stress most online posts meant well. Twitter users recorded their tributes & their distress to an audience feeling the same, though bereaved families must have found it hard to read. I’m putting aside those who targeted anyone viewed as culpable. /8

What should social media guidance look like? It too should focus on the risk of imitation. We should refuse to speculate on why someone took their life & admit how much we don’t know. We should avoid simple causes & omit details of suicide method or location. /9

We shouldn’t give the impression that a suicide achieved something positive, like vindication. And what more positive outcome than when the world finally realises how you feel, the haters are silenced, the trolls backtracking & regretful. /10

We should avoid death’s sentimental lexicon - sleeping, angel, reunited with lost loved ones - & soft focus memorials. This is delicate territory - such things can be a comfort to grieving families. But coming from the rest of us they are a dangerous depiction. /11

So what kind of messages could deter rather than encourage imitation? That it didn’t have to happen, that help was available, that it leaves a distraught family. And to be fair, many twitter posts this weekend were along these lines. /12

But that points to another concern. Is it possible the sheer volume of social media activity after a suicide could add to risk, even if well-worded? Does it create a conversation in which suicide is too visible, expected, a rational next step? The “normalisation” risk. /13

But doesn’t talking about suicide save lives? Yes if we mean opening up to a friend. Yes if we mean society confronting the human cost. But constant exposure to the possibility, the likelihood of suicide - unclear. So we should ask ourselves: do I need to comment at all? /14

It was a sad story of a woman with much to live for, one of 1000 female suicides/yr in England: we need to do better on alcohol, mental illness, domestic violence.

But online safety has a part to play too - how we talk about suicide matters. And how we talk to each other. /ends