Reflections on suicidology (written in 1999)

REFLECTIONS ON SUICIDOLOGY (written in 1999) David Lester 

 It is not surprising that people's desires for power and self-aggrandizement intrude into the scholarly world for, after all, those desires pervade human behavior in general. Nevertheless, the appearance of these desires in scholars is disappointing because scholars, of all groups, might be expected to be above such concerns. How do these desires manifest themselves in suicidology? The People And The Organizations The first way is in the fragmentation of groups concerned with suicide prevention. One organization is formed and then, apparently, some who feel that their importance is not recognized by the organization form their own organization. Everyone wants their own little kingdom, and the idea of working together in harmony is never contemplated. There are three international organizations which organize telephone crisis intervention centers -- Befrienders International, IFOTES and Life Line International. The International Association for Suicide Prevention was followed by the European Symposium and then the International Academy for Suicide Research. In the United States, the first national organization developed to advance the cause of suicide prevention, the American Association of Suicidology (AAS), was followed by the American Suicide Foundation (now renamed) and then SPAN. Each of these groups has its own leaders, and it does seem that each new leader primarily craved the spotlight. To be sure the cause is of some importance to these leaders, but the attention and trappings of power appear to be equally seductive. After all, if the cause was really important, more could be achieved by one large organization than by many smaller ones fighting for attention. AAS has been a fine organization. It has been active, fair, and inclusive -- embracing scholars, crisis centers and survivors. Founded by Edwin Shneidman and now admirably run by Alan Berman, it has proven itself to be an effective organization. I see no need for rival organizations, and I distrust the true motives of the founders and directors of AFSP and SPAN. They could easily have worked with AAS if they truly valued the cause and if they had been able to subjugate their desires for recognition. And note, I am one who frequently attacked AAS for its policies in the journal I edited in the 1970s (Crisis Intervention). The Money There have been two recent disappointments regarding the funding of suicidology. First, the widow of Arthur Sommer Rotenberg helped to raise enough money to endow a chair in suicidology at the University of Toronto. Here was a chance to appoint a leading suicidologist to organize a center for the study of suicide, and Canada has half a dozen fine scholars who merit the position. Instead, the university chose to appoint a psychiatrist who, in my opinion, was a mediocre research in borderline personality. Perhaps funding for his position had run out? I wrote to the university president to protest this waste of an opportunity. Senators and congressmen in the United States often appropriate tax-payers money simply to provide funds for their constituents. It is called "pork" and it is, again in my opinion, unethical behavior on the part of these individuals since it is not part of a rational and planned expenditure for government functions. As an example, recently a congressman in Pennsylvania removed the tolls for trucks from one exit of the Pennsylvania Turnpike so that truckers would exit there and use the restaurants and gas stations in his district. Recently Senator Harry Reid obtained $1.5 million for a suicide center and, since he was the Senator from Nevada, the center was of course established at a university in Nevada, unfortunately one with no history of suicide research. There are many fine young suicidologists across the United States who could have formed the nucleus for a center -- David Brent, Yeates Conwell, Thomas Joiner, John Mann, David Shaffer etc. Some institutions already have a couple of suicidologists on the staff, and AAS would have been able to make fine use of the funds. But the Senator was from Nevada, and so the money had to go to Nevada. When these events happen, we are supposed to cheer and be enthusiastic. Isn't this great for suicidology? To their credit, some qualified individuals have tried to work with Paul Links in Toronto, and others are working with the University of Nevada School of Medicine. But hold the cheering. Both of these events are tragic because they are both missed opportunities. We could have had a vibrant center for the study of suicide in Canada, led by Leenaars, Mishara, or Tanney. We could have had an exciting program in the United States led by Alan Berman, David Brent, Yeates Conwell or Thomas Joiner. But we don't. We have money wasted that suicidology could have usefully put to work.