What should be the right way for A&Es to respond to suicide attempts other than hospitalisation?

[Nah]

I have been wondering this for a long time.

Let's say, this site influences the majority of people to stop hospitalising people who have attempted suicide.
So someone has failed their suicide attempt and have woken up in A&E.

Should their injuries be patched up?
What should happen to them?
Should they be free to leave, and to attempt again?
Should they be OFFERED inpatient admission? (but not forced into it)

I'm from the UK and here, not similarly to what I've heard of the US, the inpatient admissions are LONG and can sometimes last more than a year.
Is it worth spending government NHS money on keeping suicidal people in hospital for more than a year just for them to attempt again once leaving?

I know the majority of people here believe that this is unethical. Which is why I'm asking what SHOULD be done in your opinion.

 

[Darkover]

everyone should have the right to leave, it's you who has to live your life nobody else, some of these lives are awful and are not worth coming alive for

 

[Withered]

I think you assume a general sentiment unto the SaSu community that we desire that death comes to those who wish it. We do not.

What we desire is that for those who have their reasons for death to come to this site to explore their options of enacting suicide or finding recovery. To begin answering your questions, we certainly do not wish that the wounded stay wounded, which is antithetical to the idea of suicide and recovery.

I cannot speak for everyone here, but it is my belief that what should happen to these hypothetical people who have woken up in the hospital is that their physical injuries are ameliorated, and, as for their mental "injuries," that they are offered admission to a treatment program, whether it be out- or in-patient. They should be free to leave, though, unless they are a minor, in which case the parent(s) or guardian(s) should have say.

In the words of my homie Dumbledore, "Help only comes to those who ask for it."

 

[EmptyBottle]

I have been wondering this for a long time.

Let's say, this site influences the majority of people to stop hospitalising people who have attempted suicide.
So someone has failed their suicide attempt and have woken up in A&E.

Should their injuries be patched up?
What should happen to them?
Should they be free to leave, and to attempt again?
Should they be OFFERED inpatient admission? (but not forced into it)

I'm from the UK and here, not similarly to what I've heard of the US, the inpatient admissions are LONG and can sometimes last more than a year.
Is it worth spending government NHS money on keeping suicidal people in hospital for more than a year just for them to attempt again once leaving?

I know the majority of people here believe that this is unethical. Which is why I'm asking what SHOULD be done in your opinion.

Allowing them to stay or leave would be the best outcome, as well as ensuring they are reasonably nice to the person. Their injuries should be treated if the patient consents, or is unable to communicate (when awake, they can consent or deny further treatment)

Yes they can choose to enter secure facilities, but they should be allowed to leave within a reasonable time of asking (eg, call someone to take them home, when they arrive allow exit), not have to spend ages there even when they changed their mind about entering those facilities

Keeping them in for too long might make them more likely to CTB once out, make them bide their time, eventually study the methods and retry with the knowledge they learnt from the past too, which increases the chance of the one way bus trip being finalised.

 

[Carrot]

Let's say, this site influences the majority of people to stop hospitalising people who have attempted suicide.
So someone has failed their suicide attempt and have woken up in A&E.

It's more about being pro-choice. If assited suicide was easily accessible, those people wouldn't have ended in A&E in the first place.

It's all about pro-choice. If you want to live, live. If you want to die, die. If you want to change your gender, change it. If you want to believe in god, believe in god. Some people might find some things strange or disgusting, but that doesn't mean we can't get along. Don't impose your views on others, just get along with people. Unite instead of hating others, focus on something productive instead of destructive.

All your further questions wouldn't matter if assisted suicide was easily accessible.

Should their injuries be patched up?

They should be patched up. A doctor doesn't know the full situation and doesn't have time for that. Unless the patient specifically asks not to, help by default. Most people want to live and doctors are there to help. They should not discriminate.

What should happen to them?

I'm not sure, how much resources does the country want to spend on this? They should be given as much help as possible, obviously, but if the system was perfect they wouldn't end up in this place in the first place.

Should they be free to leave, and to attempt again?

Yes. The topic is about not forcefully hospitilazing people. There is nothing else but allow them to leave and possibly try again.

Should they be OFFERED inpatient admission? (but not forced into it)

Yes, people can recommend doing so. I don't see why not.

Is it worth spending government NHS money on keeping suicidal people in hospital for more than a year just for them to attempt again once leaving?

Fix their problems or let them die.

Is it worth it? I don't know. In a cold way, maybe it's better to keep them alive so they maybe can get back into the system and work, have kids and so on, assuming "worth it" means the survival of humanity.

I also don't think that we always need to look if something is "worth it". Sometimes something might not be "worth it" from a purely pragmatic, economical view, but is still a good thing to do in a civilised world. A homeless person asks be to buy bread. I just lost some time and money, was it worth it? Did I do it to feel better, or to reduce the chance that the person will turn into crime or break into my house? Was it altruism?

 

[Nah]

I think you assume a general sentiment unto the SaSu community that we desire that death comes to those who wish it. We do not.

What we desire is that for those who have reasonable motivation for death to come to this site to explore their options of enacting suicide or finding recovery. To begin answering your questions, we certainly do not wish that the wounded stay wounded, which is antithetical to the idea of suicide and recovery.

I cannot speak for everyone here, but it is my belief that what should happen to these hypothetical people who have woken up in the hospital is that their physical injuries are ameliorated, and, as for their mental "injuries," that they are offered admission to a treatment program, whether it be out- or in-patient. They should be free to leave, though, unless they are a minor, in which case the parent(s) or guardian(s) should have say.

In the words of my homie Dumbledore, "Help only comes to those who ask for it."

Thank you for your reply,
And also, thank you for clarifying on those points.

I id agree with the patient being offered inpatient/outpatient treatment but not being forced. And totally agree about the bit about the minors.

Dumbledore is a great guy,
Have a good rest of your day.

Allowing them to stay or leave would be the best outcome, as well as ensuring they are reasonably nice to the person. Their injuries should be treated if the patient consents, or is unable to communicate (when awake, they can consent or deny further treatment)

Yes they can choose to enter secure facilities, but they should be allowed to leave within a reasonable time of asking (eg, call someone to take them home, when they arrive allow exit), not have to spend ages there even when they changed their mind about entering those facilities

Keeping them in for too long might make them more likely to CTB once out, make them bide their time, eventually study the methods and retry with the knowledge they learnt from the past too, which increases the chance of the one way bus trip being finalised.

Thank you for your opinion,

I would agree with you, having the patient being allowed to exit seems very important.

 

[sinfonia]

What we desire is that for those who have reasonable motivation for death to come to this site to explore their options of enacting suicide or finding recovery

I'm not sure if you're right about this tbh. Many SaSu users belive we should always give the suicidal person the benefit of thr doubt even if their motivation seems unreasonable or downright absurd. This sentiment has also been echoed by the admin and moderators of this site.

 

[Nah]

It's more about being pro-choice. If assited suicide was easily accessible, those people wouldn't have ended in A&E in the first place.

It's all about pro-choice. If you want to live, live. If you want to die, die. If you want to change your gender, change it. If you want to believe in god, believe in god. Some people might find some things strange or disgusting, but that doesn't mean we can't get along. Don't impose your views on others, just get along with people. Unite instead of hating others, focus on something productive instead of destructive.

All your further questions wouldn't matter if assisted suicide was easily accessible.


They should be patched up. A doctor doesn't know the full situation and doesn't have time for that. Unless the patient specifically asks not to, help by default. Most people want to live and doctors are there to help. They should not discriminate.


I'm not sure, how much resources does the country want to spend on this? They should be given as much help as possible, obviously, but if the system was perfect they wouldn't end up in this place in the first place.


Yes. The topic is about not forcefully hospitilazing people. There is nothing else but allow them to leave and possibly try again.


Yes, people can recommend doing so. I don't see why not.


Fix their problems or let them die.

Is it worth it? I don't know. In a cold way, maybe it's better to keep them alive so they maybe can get back into the system and work, have kids and so on, assuming "worth it" means the survival of humanity.

I also don't think that we always need to look if something is "worth it". Sometimes something might not be "worth it" from a purely pragmatic, economical view, but is still a good thing to do in a civilised world. A homeless person asks be to buy bread. I just lost some time and money, was it worth it? Did I do it to feel better, or to reduce the chance that the person will turn into crime or break into my house? Was it altruism?

Thank you for your detailed reply.

Yes I see now how it is more about being pro choice.

Human thoughts are very interesting to me.

Have a good rest of your day.

 

[Withered]

I'm not sure if you're right about this tbh. Many SaSu users belive we should always give the suicidal person the benefit of thr doubt even if their motivation seems unreasonable or downright absurd. This sentiment has also been echoed by the admin and moderators of this site.

I think we have different definitions of reasonable. I mean it in the sense that the person has reasons to be suicidal. I meant no indication of whether their reasons are agreeable or not.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

It's a quite difficult question and there no clear answer.

Nobody should be kept alive against their own will.