What Happens When You Tell Your Doctor That You're Suicidal

Generally speaking, if someone tells their doctor they want to kill themselves the doctor can have them imprisoned. I don't think this would happen in every instance but it is a very real risk.

Valmont wrote: »

Generally speaking, if someone tells their doctor they want to kill themselves the doctor can have them imprisoned. I don't think this would happen in every instance but it is a very real risk.

WTF.... like seriously, why would you say such a thing??????

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

This is entirely untrue. Yes, people can be admitted to psychiatric units involuntarily - but this isn't imprisonment!

Dress it up all you like but detaining an individual against their will behind a locked door is imprisonment. This does not mean it is the same as imprisonment through the penal system as these individuals have more rights and protections in the form of being innocent until proven guilty and being able to post bail.

JuliusCaesar wrote:

People are admitted for treatment, not to be punished.

I could imprisonment somebody because I like them, it still doesn't change the nature of the action. Whether it's for 'treatment' or punishment, locking somebody up, detaining them, making them captive, or 'civilly committing' them are all forms of imprisonment.

And treatment isn't necessarily nice and fluffy and helpful. For the 2000 people in the UK between 2011 and 2012 who received Electro-convulsive therapy against their will after being sectioned would be more likely to call it torture given the chronic global cognitive deficits they will now have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Dar100 wrote:

WTF.... like seriously, why would you say such a thing??????

Such is the typical reaction of the faithful when mental health orthodoxy is stripped of its medicalised jargon. I would like to hear you explain how detaining somebody in a room against their will and possibly even administering them with drugs is not a form of imprisonment.

Such is the typical reaction of the faithful when mental health orthodoxy is stripped of its medicalised jargon. I would like to hear you explain how detaining somebody in a room against their will and possibly even administering them with drugs is not a form of imprisonment.[/QUOTE]

I am far from faithful Valmont, I also am very cynical of psychiatry. In the context of the post by the OP, given the fear of even attending the doctor, I feel your post was very unhelpful, not the actual content of the post as such.

Maybe it is a form of imprisonment, but it does only occur as a last line intervention, is this not a better outcome than the person actually following through with their suicide ideation?? I'm sure the OP family would much prefare s/he to be in a hospital as opposed to a ......

OP, I have unfortunately had to tell my doc many times that I was suicidal, and I've never been met with anything but compassion.
Saying that you want to die/kill yourself doesn't automatically mean that the guards are going to called to cart you off. Often, it's a sign that you are finding life too difficult to cope with and need more support, that's all. And you can have an input into what that support is. For example, do you have a family member you could tell? Or maybe get an appointment quicker with the psych doc. Or see a counsellor a few times a week. There are LOADS of options.

What I remember of being suicidal is that there never seemed to be any options. I couldn't tell my sister because she was busy at work. I couldn't take time off work because there was a deadline. And somehow in my head, ending my life was the perfect solution. That's why my doctor would always put several options on the table, to open doors for me, to try to get me to see that there were answers.

Several times, my doctor and I decided TOGETHER that hospital would be the best place for me. This was always done with my consent, and in a very gentle way. And it was always such a relief when I got there. Mind you, I was always in a private hospital. Somehow, my mind couldn't cope with the thought of the local unit.

Don't be scared - reach out to some one. ring Pieta House for advice, find a low cost counsellor, talk to a friend first. But reach out and get the support you deserve.


One tip - if you are going to see your doctor, tell the receptionist when you make the appointment that you might need a longer time. The last thing you need is the doctor feeling pressured after 6 minutes!

Valmont wrote: »

Unhelpful to whom? The OP thanked my post pointing out the very real risk that one may be detained in a psych ward for discussing suicide with a doctor or mental health worker.

But considering this is a discussion forum, it would be helpful if you could explain why you think my argument is "drivel" or why you believe it is unhelpful (despite the obvious evidence to the contrary of course)? The difference between us at this point is that my agenda is open to scrutiny and debate whereas you seem to prefer throwing mud.

I work with a charitable organisation who have many people discuss suicide with us simply because they don't want to be sectioned by their GPs. I think it is both relevant and helpful to point out that discussing suicide with your doctor may have you carted off to a psych ward for a potentially lengthy stay. However don't take this to mean I would encourage somebody to refrain from seeking help! There are many people who could help in such a situation.

I'm sure a suicidal person's family would prefer to see them restrained from taking their own life (understandably) but ultimately we have to ask whether we respect an individual's right to self-determination. If it is their life, shouldn't they be the sole judge of how to live or how to die?

Self-determination is something I believe in when working with clients, but I think there are times and situations when this can and should be taking away (short term) from the individual.

The idea of self-determination is a great philosophy to live/work by, but what happens when an individuals self-determination impacts upon others around them??

Lets say a person wants to commit suicide, they see no other option but to carry this out because they are overwhelmed with emotional pain. Now in order to make assessments, treatment plan etc it may be the only option to hospitalise the person to keep them alive while conducting treatment.

Lets say this person also has young children (I'm not talking about the OP), is there not a duty of care towards them??

When the issues are worked through and medication/therapy does it's job, what person will not be thankful that they are still alive??

When the bigger picture is explored, things don't seem so black and white

Semele wrote: »

Also, to the other posters, although I do think the medical model and its power structures do need to be questioned and challenged, I have severe reservations about how responsible it is for MH professionals to be having such melodramatic and scaremongering debates on a thread where someone has asked for advice and support. Some of us are familiar with the issues involved and have had the opportunity to make an informed decision on our stance towards them, however I can only imagine how off putting and anxiety-provoking witnessing that is for a 'layperson' experiencing difficulties. We should know better than to cause harm or distress in the furthering of our own agendas.

The latest figures I can find suggest that 1,633 people were involuntarily admitted for mental health treatment in 2009. This doesn't even include those who were bullied into a voluntary admission under the threat of an actual commitment. I think you need to provide some evidence or even an argument to support why you feel pointing out the risk of imprisonment when talking about suicide somehow amounts to melodramatic scare-mongering.

You are also suggesting that speaking frankly about civil commitment harms the mental health of mentally ill people who may become 'anxious' as a result. How you can bring this point up without comparing it to the very real harm and distress involved the civil commitment procedure is beyond me. Genuine clinical medical practice prides itself on the principles of honesty, forthrightness, and informed consent but here you are suggesting that we shouldn't actually call civil commitment by its proper name: imprisonment by mental health workers in a mental health facility.

Given that the critic of involuntary commitment has an agenda in seeing the practice stopped, the psychologist has an agenda in seeing the practice continue and to lend it justification. There is no reason to dismiss one camp solely for 'having an agenda' -- we all do. You seem to have taken an ultimately hypocritical (and unsupportable) stance in ignoring the physical harm and distress which is a necessary part of involuntary commitment under the guise of preventing alleged mental harm resulting from a frank discussion of the facts. Those deemed mentally ill should have every right to openly discuss any details of 'treatments' which may effect them -- any other suggestion is simply dehumanising and reinforces stigma.

Can I point out yet again that this is a psychology forum, NOT a psychiatry forum? If you want to complain about psychiatry (which is a medical speciality) please do so in the appropriate forum. Psychologists do not prescribe. Psychologists do not administer ECT. JC

Valmont, what do you suggest when the person is incapable of giving informed consent? I take it you have not dealt with people suffering acute psychosis.