News New Term: Completed Suicide Vs. Comitted Suicide

[NoWhereKnowWhere]

one of the things I always find odd is the beating around the bush with regards to death in general. A lot of euphemisms are used to describe death, it's not something people really want to think about. While I understand it might sound better to say some one "passed away" it doesn't change the fact they're dead.

Having known people who have died at by their own hand. I've always described it as "they killed them selves". And having tried to kill my self a couple of times I think it makes more sense to say it as that. It does illicit more of a shock response When you say "killed them self" and you know it probably should. That's what it is though. I've even heard it referred to as "died due to depression" took their own life even. The word suicide is too far removed.

Language changes all the time and different cultures see "suicide" and death differently. You absolutely cannot please all of the people all of the time. Best if you're speaking to someone about "suicide" who has been affected by it how they would like you to refer to it as.

 

[Neverthesame]

Having been there myself, and failing to complete/commit/succeed (whatever descriptor you like). The negative feelings associated with the "failure" are not of an academic sense.
This was not a math final, or a car part I couldn't fix. This was death.

There would be no sense of accomplishment because I would be dead. There is no need to "get it right next time", for if I do I won't be be here to know it. I won't care anymore.
The only need, is to end the pain. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

In fact there are feelings of pride and relief in failing.
For one, I'm alive. I have a chance to find a better way to live with my dæmons.
Second. I didn't do any permanent damage to my body in my attempt.

I have used this analogy on this forum before.
A person in the final moments before enacting their plan of suicide, is in a similar predicament as someone trapped in a burning high-rise. When faced with the choice of either jumping to their death, or burning to death.
Simply the question going through the mind of a person about to commit suicide, is not. Whether or not they should die. But, how and when.
The decision to do or don't, has already been made.
Religious ramifications have been accepted. I knew I'd burn in hell for doing it, but I was going anyway. The chance that I'm not going to feel that way anymore, was enough to justify the risk.

No amount of positive phrasing mattered, if anything it's insulting to think that a person could think I hold so little value of life, or the enormous impact my ending mine, would have on the people who I care for. Even the people who would have to come and collect my corpse.
That they could think something so trivial would have an impact, then try to tell me they had my best interest at heart.

I don't know your friend. I am sorry he did not survive.
I do think it more likely that his successful suicide, was not because of a sense of failed ambition. But because he couldn't tolerate the pain he was in anymore.

His decision was no one else's fault. Nor should he be looked down upon for doing it.

Suicide is an issue that needs to be discussed, made open. So people can learn and understand, to prevent more people from dying unnecessarily by their own hands.

This however cannot be accomplished by policing language. By telling people what they "shouldn't/can't" say. Silence and shame never fix anything.

This is the full version of the Crotchety Old Man Moment. Ultimately my opinion.

EDIT: I forgot to put in the analogy. My apologies.

 

[youarenotarobot]

Personally, I don't like the term "completed" suicide. It makes me think of a video game. Hooray, you completed another level! Hooray, you completed that stage! Hooray, you completed your life! It just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

To me, "completed" just has positive associations. "You complete me", "I completed that", and now I'm writing it so much that it just doesn't seem like a real word anymore.

That's just how I think. I don't really like the term "committed" suicide either, but I prefer it to "completed". When speaking of my friends suicide attempt I try to just use "she tried to kill herself" but when I'm in distress and getting so overwhelmed, I end up not really daring how I describe it. It adds more pressure if I'm talking about what happened and suddenly think "oh no-I used the term 'committed'. Is someone going to get offended? Damn, time to rewrite my thoughts and emotions."

Different strokes fir different folks, I think of it like the suicide "selfish vs selfless" argument. Someone's dead, and you're arguing over what words are acceptable to use? Different words are always going to mean different things to different people. At the end of the day, the best thing to do is consider what words their grieving loved ones use, and just follow that. Even if you don't agree with it, it shows you're listening and taking their feelings into consideration.

I also think there's a risk of showing suicide as a positive thing. You "completed" suicide, it was a "selfless and brave act", if anyone argues against this they are being ridiculous and judgmental, if family members tell you how your suicide will terrible affect them they're being manipulative and guilt-tripping you, suicide is not a choice...at the end of the day, when I get suicidal, I just look at all those positive implications of suicide and think "what the heck is the point of staying alive then?"
Just my two cents, from someone who is deeply affected by a friends' suicide attempt and struggles with suicidal thoughts myself.

 

[Ladyghosthunter]

*hits my head on the desk* Political correctness. Yick.

 

[joeylittle]

So giving it something like "completed" seems unwise. We cheer when we've completed a task. We're done out work. It's over, we can go play now. We complete tasks, we don't complete fun. So to complete means to finish an arduous task, to be done something awful. I don't like that idea getting reinforced in our social consciousness. I'd prefer we reinforced it with terminology that points out suicide is awful. It's terrible, it's bad, it shouldn't be celebrated and life shouldn't be an awful task you're waiting to "complete" .

It sends the wrong message.

Personally, I don't like the term "completed" suicide. It makes me think of a video game. Hooray, you completed another level! Hooray, you completed that stage! Hooray, you completed your life! It just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

To me, "completed" just has positive associations. "You complete me", "I completed that", and now I'm writing it so much that it just doesn't seem like a real word anymore.

This baffles me.

Completed just means finished. It doesn't mean finished something and now you get a reward. That would be achieved. i cannot think of a more neutral word than completed, to be the opposite of attempted.

Attempt and fail
Attempt and complete.
Attempt and Commit - that's not nearly as logical.

Complete makes more sense - from a clinical perspective.

Anytime suicide has to be written about or discussed from the perspective of "suicide is the topic" - one has to address "attempted" and "completed". Statistically it's just a real thing. Otherwise...what? Committed suicide but didn't succeed? Well, that's way more of a positive spin, if positive 'spin' is what bothers you.

Commit makes sense as well - I'm not saying it doesn't. It's slightly short form for 'commit an act of suicide' - and yes, that is like 'commit a crime', because it's been considered criminal and/or immoral and/or a sin for a very very long time. No need to replace Commit.

But dickering over Complete being somehow wrong because it has a positive connotation...it's science. It's clinical terminology.

Also: I don't think anyone who attempts suicide from a non-hallucinatory state has any illusion that it is an admirable, noble, or generous act. We are talking about death. All the thoughts you think, well they aren't the thoughts you are having once you've decided. Once you've decided, it's very different.

Suicide is an issue that needs to be discussed, made open. So people can learn and understand, to prevent more people from dying unnecessarily by their own hands.

This however cannot be accomplished by policing language. By telling people what they "shouldn't/can't" say. Silence and Shame never fix anything.

Well said.

I know I'm ranting a little, forgive me. But 'completed' has been the clinical term for quite a long time. To declare that it 'sends the wrong signal' is, to me, ludicrous. And the 'suicide' part - the second half of the phrase? - that is, all by itself, a horrible, unnatural, almost impossible thing for a living breathing human being to complete from start to finish. The body does not want to die, no matter how much pain you are in. The body fights back.

OK, that's enough rant from me.

 

[J'qel]

It's a subconscious matter, and to complete, in this day and age is definitely a positive thing-wherein we live in a time and an era where fully completing things takes a certain amount of dedication. We leave dishes in the sink to soak, we grab a nutrition bar or a coffee for breakfast, we clean a room at a time-because we don't have time for anything else.

To complete anything is an accomplishment. Suicide should not be an accomplishment.

You'll also note that I am in favor of using "commit" only to people who die. I prefer "initiate" to those who don't succeed. It means to start, but not necessarily to finish. When one commits a felony, they have done it, not attempted to do it.

I think the notion of being a failure in a number of ways is negative, and it does contribute. I don't think his statement is unique in any way for those so lost. I do think for such people the idea that at least they can "successfully complete" *something* in their lives may drive their determination.

This is not about policing, and using commit-a guilt associated term-on the dead should be fine. They're dead, they're not going to be hurt by the negativity of the term. I think enforcing that killing oneself is a bad thing should be implemented to try and cut back on suicides. It won't make a large difference, but that one friend is only one of a few I have known who have ended their lives. Having one more of them alive out of the handful would be enough of a progress for me.

We will never be able to fully police statements, and while there are such things as hate speech laws (with varying degrees of prosecution) they're about as observed as jaywalking offenses. We can't put words in people's mouths, but there are times when what comes out of someone's mouth is a big part of the problem-in many ways.

I studied language because we are a social race, we're very interdependent and a lot of our mistakes are done through misunderstandings and unclear communication. While we may say what we mean, we're not saying what we need to to have the effect that is desired. You can clearly and honestly articulate what you mean and get a wide variety of responses, depending on your choice of language (in any culture).

It's only through some years and some fringe courses that I took early on, I learned some other relevant cultural notions (later turned into a more major interest). Words however, are the core of our communication-body language varies across cultures, but if we speak the verbal language we can still make ourselves readily understood.

The words we use hurt or bring joy depending on how we choose to use them, and choosing to use them in a more constructive manner should be the mature and responsible thing to do.

While I understand the notion of "this is how it is and I don't think it needs to/I don't want it to change" we are also a race that is in constant flux. Change for the better, however minimal should always be encouraged.

Again, in my second post I made allowances for disciplines that make use of language in different ways. I am fine with "completed" when doctors and clinicians are talking among each other to describe an event. Not so much when talking in common parlance with patients or others who may be affected. In that case, it is coldly accurate, and clinicians and doctors need to be professionally detached for so many reasons. The language they use among themselves should always be a different manner than they approach clients lest they alienate and give the wrong impression to those dependent upon their aid.

I am aware I can and will lose many in the nuances of proper application of language given the situation, but I do think it's something worth considering and it is rather important. I know many will ignore it and choose to mix their terms and methods in conversations. However, I am also aware that such mixing can cause a host of small issues that can pile up rather fast in social situations.

I'm of the mind that if you have a means to avoid it, even if it take a while to get used to it, why shouldn't it be avoided? I understand some are not and some would prefer not to put the effort in, but that doesn't change the fact that the terms and language we choose to use as human being affect our every social interaction. For a subject as fraught as suicide, I would think that it would be worth the effort on the part of professionals, to minimize the damage.

 

[joeylittle]

To complete anything is an accomplishment. Suicide should not be an accomplishment.

You are projecting. There is no positive value associated with complete in a clinical sense.

It's a bit like thinking they should not call the number 0 a zero in maths, because it's perjorative.

Context is important.

Initiated isn't accurate either. The meaning simply needs to be, to try. Not to begin. It would be more accurate to say suicide is initiated when the individual begins planning in earnest.

Look - I am possibly as precise and pedantic about language as you are being.

And I rarely say this: I think you are absolutely wrong to assume a positive connotation on the word completed in a clinical context.

And frankly - even if your argument held water - it all falls down in your last statement. You say this:

I think enforcing that killing oneself is a bad thing should be implemented to try and cut back on suicides.

I think we agree that suicide is a terrible thing. You are not thinking about the issue the way the majority of suicidal people do. If you were, you'd understand why you are wrong.

for a subject as fraught as suicide, I would think that it would be worth the effort on the part of professionals, to minimize the damage.

No. It is appropriate for the professionals to allow suicide to sound as stark as it is. Minimize the damage to whom? The survivors of the deceased? How about moving that need back a few steps so we help the person contemplating suicide?

For the suicidal individual, the most useful intervention (statistically) is the concept of finality. Death is not relief. Death is just done. Over. Completed. Ended.

Whereas, to commit - from the perspective of a suicidal individual, commitment is what they want. It's very common to argue with yourself: why haven't I followed through? Why can't I commit to this decision? Why aren't I doing this already?

Committed speaks to taking action.

Encouraging action is not good.

Completed speaks to the ending of things. That's what has the best chance at reversing someone from attempting suicide - emphasizing that there is no coming back. There is nothing after.

Ok. I'm done.

 

[J'qel]

I did, in fact say, that among clinicians, in a professional sense, it was entirely expected and acceptable. It is in the modern era in common social events that it is not particularly advisable.

Yes, to minimize the damage to the survivors, and to those patients who may be suicidal. To deter them from suicide should be their first interest. Survivors often are traumatized on their own and making it rougher than it is serves no purpose but an ill one. When at all possible we should choose to be compassionate to those who suffer.

To commit is no longer used as "committing to an engagement" commonly, or even "committing to a goal" is much much rarer than "committing an offense" -your most common hearing of commit is either a-a crime or b-suicide. Commit isn't a positive word anymore. Much like we call it just heavy frost instead of hoarfrost.

I see no issue with calling it "initiating" even under your description. It is to start, to begin. It implies a start without an end.

You can commit no more to suidcide than to die-under the actual use of the term. You are fully committed when you have done so.

Complete is rarely used in a negative sense. We say "I completed my assignment" "I completed my work for the day" (even then it's usually "finish/ed"); I can't even think of a single negative use of the word completed, other than this terminology for suicide.

It isn't pedantic if it makes a difference in someone's life. Small things can make a big difference. Especially when applied to a large mass of people.

 

[joeylittle]

Complete is rarely used in a negative sense.

When I have completed reading a book - I am not glad of it if the book was good.

When the ride on the Ferris wheel has reached completion, I am not eager to get off of it.

When the orchestra has completed their performance, the music is gone.

Your inherent bias is that the task is arduous, and completing it is a relief.

But the message a suicidal person needs is the opposite: the task - staying alive - has the possibility of words, rides, music. But when it is completed, all that is gone.

Would you like more examples of how completing something can leave an individual bereft?

Please. Think. About. It.

 

[Neverthesame]

To complete anything is an accomplishment. Suicide should not be an accomplishment.

It can't be. As I said before. It's death. One can only recognise an accomplishment after completing the trial/ordeal/project/work. Which the dead cannot do, because they are dead.

You'll also note that I am in favor of using "commit" only to people who die. I prefer "initiate" to those who don't succeed. It means to start, but not necessarily to finish.

This doesn't make sense to me either. Death is the finale. It's not a beginning. There's no proof that something occurs after death, or if there is any form of concious recollection, should such a state exist.

When one commits a felony, they have done it, not attempted to do it.

Since we are discussing words as they apply to other's.
Convicted, would be what a felon would be referred to as. Otherwise they would be alleged. As they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

I don't think his statement is unique in any way for those so lost.

You're right, it's not.
It's a mechanism found commonly among people who suffer from depression. If you pay attention to someone who is in this frame of mind, it is not limited to suicidal actions, but everything they do. If they can find a way to put themselves down they do.
I do.

for such people the idea that at least they can "successfully complete" *something* in their lives may drive their determination.

How? If they succeed, they won't know it. A subsequent successful attempt, is still only to end their own suffering. What @joeylittle said, is quite correct. The self preservation instinct is still very much present in a suicidal person. Hence why most attempted suicides fail.
A person who is not in a heavily altered mental state has no desire to die. It is a drastic action from a desperate person, to end unbearable suffering.

They're dead, they're not going to be hurt by the negativity of the term. I think enforcing that killing oneself is a bad thing should be implemented to try and cut back on suicides.

I see where you're coming from. But it's a very fine line between damning the act and the thoughts which precipitate it, from the person who is thinking and doing it.
When someone in that state of mind gets the idea in their heads that the people whom they're reaching out to for help think them bad people. Well... they won't bother reaching out again.

We will never be able to fully police statements, and while there are such things as hate speech laws (with varying degrees of prosecution) they're about as observed as jaywalking offenses.

True. But, we can give any ample reason to shut their mouths. But we can never stop the thoughts that become unfavourable speech. So at best it can swept under the rug until no one is looking, then it simply resurfaces.

Words however, are the core of our communication-body language varies across cultures, but if we speak the verbal language we can still make ourselves readily understood.

So if two people who speak two very alien languages are locked in a room together with a puzzle to solve, they will actually just shout at each other in jibberish, rather than point at something?

While I understand the notion of "this is how it is and I don't think it needs to/I don't want it to change" we are also a race that is in constant flux. Change for the better, however minimal should always be encouraged.

So, some people like blue better than green. Should we spend millions of dollars in infrastructure changes and advertising campaigns to turn all the green traffic lights in Canada from green/amber/red to blue/amber/red?

It won't be harmful, won't be better. Just a change for the sake of change?

So I don't sound too patronising. The country I grew up in. Still uses MPH despite the metric system being implemented for use nationwide. Why?

Simple. The home office decided that the people were too stupid to understand the difference between MPH and KPH. They would have a huge percentage of the population accidentally killing themselves and everyone around them, driving at 100mph on the A-roads.

I know that Canada also made the switch from Imperial to metric.... Hmm... No massive death toll...

I'm all for change, when it's actually practical.

I am fine with "completed" when doctors and clinicians are talking among each other to describe an event. Not so much when talking in common parlance with patients or others who may be affected. In that case, it is coldly accurate, and clinicians and doctors need to be professionally detached for so many reasons. The language they use among themselves should always be a different manner than they approach clients lest they alienate and give the wrong impression to those dependent upon their aid.

I used to be an EMT. There is a fine line between being too "technical" and "condescending". It's different from patient to patient. Some people would call a broken arm a fractured humerus (which no one finds very funny). Some would say "dey broke der' arm bone" both are accurate. Both understand the problem. And are communicating with the way they are most comfortable.

If I were to say... Get a call for a kid who has just taken a whole bottle of aspirin (That doesn't work very well, by the way)
I am going to speak to him in whatever way I think has the best chance of getting through to him. Why?
Because I give a shit. The worst thing anyone could do would be to tie my tongue with silly language standards, because I would then be forced to silence, or further alienation of a person who desperately needs to be listened to. Someone who probably doesn't want to be spoken at like a child.

For a subject as fraught as suicide, I would think that it would be worth the effort on the part of professionals, to minimize the damage.

You're damned right it is. It's also damned difficult to talk to somebody in that position. Education and training on what to say, is far more valuable than what not to say. That's what I'd rather see the effort put into. Imho

But again, it is a case by case thing. There are no one size fits all answers.

 

[DharmaGirl]

Hmm, I'm trying to keep up and I see good points made everywhere. My brother passed away. His death certificate says, "He hung himself". I would much rather have seen completed suicide. I was an RN case manager, and hearing a psych RN say that someone was just "seeking attention" is so inappropriate, given the person's suicidality. To say it was a failed suicide would have been more appropriate and descriptive, but the general public doesn't have to use clinical terms. I also think it has nothing to do with political correctness.

 

[Tinyflame]

I'm very sorry @DharmaGirl . My mom called it 'too sensitive for this world'. I don't think I'll see that in my lifetime but it's closer to the truth. Hugs to you xox.