RECENTLY, the tragic death of a public figure was followed by the widespread circulation of a suicide note they had purportedly left behind. The note’s circulation, both online as well as offline, and indeed the media’s reportage around it, deserves comment.

Suicide is, rightfully, a major public health concern. In Pakistan, it is estimated that nearly 20,000 people die by suicide every year. But for every death that transpires, there are likely scores more who are at risk of suicide. For that reason, reporting suicide is not a simple task, and comes with enormous ethical and moral implications.

A responsible approach requires not just conveying the news accurately, but ensuring that reporting itself does not instigate harm, and instead, spreads awareness to help prevent suicides. Unlike reportage around other issues, suicide merits a higher degree of sensitivity, with due consideration given to its impact on surviving family members as well as vulnerable groups in the population at large.

Unsurprisingly, the media has tremendous power to influence an audience about the choices they make at critical junctures in their lives. There is evidence to show that thoughtless news reports can increase the risk of suicide.

This is because vulnerable groups, who might self-identify as being in similar situations, may be encouraged to carry out the fatal act. Following widespread reports of Hollywood actor Robin Williams’ suicide in 2014, the US saw a 10 per cent increase in suicide deaths in a subsequent period.

In order to minimise inadvertent harm caused from news reportage around suicide, it is crucial that the following points must be considered by journalists and media houses.

There is evidence to show that thoughtless news reports can increase the risk of suicide.

First, sensational coverage, headlines that prominently feature the word ‘suicide’, dramatic storytelling, and news dressed as clickbait is significantly likely to increase the risk of suicide among vulnerable groups. It is safer to not print stories pertaining to suicide prominently on the front page of newspapers, or to break news of suicide in a lead bulletin, especially if the deceased was a public figure and lived life in the public eye.

Second, details pertaining to personal identity, life history, circumstances of suicide or details around suicide notes should not be shared. Because suicide is associated with significant religio-cultural stigma, these details are likely to infringe on the privacy of the deceased and hinder the recovery of severely distressed surviving relatives.

Interviews with eyewitnesses should not be made public, as these are likely to be accompanied by graphic details and only encourage further sensationalism. Making public the circumstances around a suicide increases the probability that vulnerable people exposed to this information may romanticise suicidal behaviour.

Third, the terms and phrases used when describing suicidal behaviour are extremely important, as the connotations associated with them can harden stigma and discourage vulnerable groups from seeking help.

For instance, the phrase ‘commit suicide’ implies criminality and should never be used; nor should suicide ever be reported in the same space as other crime stories. Some neutral alternatives are ‘taken their own life’ or ‘died by suicide’.

Similarly, phrases such as ‘cry for help’, categorising attempts as ‘successful’ or ‘unsuccessful’, describing the deceased as a ‘suicide victim’ or terming a string of suicides an ‘epidemic’ are counterproductive.

Also, editorialising tragedy by using phrases such as ‘they’re in a better place’ or ‘they finally found an escape’ presents suicide as a solution to problems, or as an understandable response to a crisis or adversity. This can contribute to normalising suicide as an appropriate response to distress.

Fourth, describing the exact method of suicide carries with it serious risks. Descriptions can increase awareness of specific methods, or increase perceptions of a particular method’s efficacy. When the materials or ingredients involved are readily available and their details are publicised, this can paint suicide as an easily achievable act. Details of novel or unusual suicide methods should also never be reported.

Fifth, publicising details of location — for example, a public square, a high-rise building, a bridge or railway line — is likely to result in more deaths at that location. Labelling a location as a ‘suicide hotspot’ or ‘notorious site’ paradoxically increases people’s awareness of both method and location, and can make this or similar locations a magnet for vulnerable groups.

Sixth, suicide is almost always the result of a combination of psychological, situational, societal and individual factors. It is unlikely that a single event or factor can lead someone to take their own life.

Playing up a single event or factor such as job loss, socioeconomic problems, bullying or marital discord, or attributing any one of these factors as the cause of suicide will always be misleading and a gross oversimplification. This too can put vulnerable people experiencing similar problems at greater risk.

Finally, whilst reporting, making spurious connections between different suicides, or linking suicide to a certain geography or demographic can lead to additional suicides. Suggesting unsubstantiated links between different suicides can also overstate or amplify the prevalence of suicide.

Suicide is an entirely preventable act, and responsible reporting can help save lives. Reports should ultimately highlight the complex reality of suicide; make public the risk factors associated with suicide like mental health problems; empathically report the devastating impact on families; encourage vulnerable groups to seek support when in crisis; and provide information or tickers on sources of help.

To achieve this, it is vital that media houses publish suicide reporting guidelines, hold training workshops for staff, and editors become vigilant about terms and context reported in such stories. Reporting on suicide takes a toll on the mental health of journalists themselves. Measures need to be taken to help them cope with the challenges of their own work.

The writer is a consultant psychiatrist and the national technical adviser for the Ministry of Planning, Development & Special Initiatives.
Twitter @AsmaHumayun

Published in Dawn, July 29th, 2023