Posted by ElaineM on December 27, 2006, at 23:19:29
In reply to Lou's response -aspects of ElaineM's post-newfrm?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2006, at 16:03:30
In my point of view, the issue doesn't seem so multi-faceted. But perhaps were are focusing on different aspects. I'm not arguing here, just clarifying my own standpoint by using parts of your post AuntieMel.
>>>>It is hard, if not impossible, to know when someone is serious or if someone is "crying wolf."
>>>>Should we refuse to help someone in crisis?For just me personally, I am bothered by the issue of repetition, and the acknowledgement that suicide talk is possibly, or sometimes, used as a medium for elliciting immediate responses. But again, this may be just one of my own issues.
But in terms of the more general concern of the thread, I don't see the issue as being that people shouldn't be allowed to "cry wolf" or that "crying wolf" should be punishable [though I'm not saying that AuntieMel's post suggested that], but rather being when the "crying wolf" (or true, actual intent) is stated to be somehow caused by another poster or posters. I don't have a problem with people expressing their wanting to commit suicide - afterall, that's what peer forums usually are for. I'd also be equally upset if people were NOT allowed to talk of suicide, suicidal ideation, self-harm etc. But I would have a major problem with that desire/plan being threatened as a reaction (explicit or implicit) to the behaviour of fellow posters (keeping in mind that their communications must too be civil).
But also, as far as starting a new forum, I myself, don't think that's necessary. I think this place already has appropriate places to discuss death, suicide, and any other tough, sensitive subjects - I think the issue is more that it is discussed/written about/whatever appropriately, and that that's always enforced consistently. I think that the person asking for help (whatever form that ends up taking) must be equally as sensitive and respectful to the community as a whole, as the replies that are being asked for. I know that sounds strange considering that this is a forum where mental illness is going to be a factor, but as far as I know, being symptomatic has never been considered a sufficient reason for leniency before in regards to other issues here, or other types of posts. If I'm not mistaken the administrative position has been stated as something along the line of "for the good of the whole", which to me implies that someone asking for help in a crisis, or "crisis", must still be held equally accountable in their conduct. But I could be wrong - I'm not often on admin.
But to reiterate, the issue in this thread I'm most concerned with isn't the pure talking of suicide or suicidality, or even someone reporting that they are gonna do it and then taking it all back, but rather somehow threatening it, or implying it, as a consequence of other fellow posters responses.
I just worry that the several slightly different issues coming out in the thread may get confused.
Thanks for listening, EL
poster:ElaineM
thread:716057
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/716848.html