What hope do people have if the same services for suicide cannot help?! I’m a Virgo Venus, you’ll understand why I say so in the next post, whilst going through it again, many things made sense and I’d rather be detailed with my care, even when not sure about a reality. How can we hope in this world where policy reigns life?!

……

I have a question for humanity.

HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIED BY SUICIDE AFTER SOMEONE ELSE HAD ALREADY REPORTED CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR WELLBEING?

And how many have died after repeatedly crying out for help themselves?

How many warnings were raised? How many people saw the signs? How many attempted to intervene? How many reached out to the very services supposedly established to prevent such tragedies?

AND HOW MANY WERE MET WITH POLICY BEFORE THEY WERE MET WITH HUMANITY?

Because I now have something rather interesting.

I HAVE IT IN WRITING.

I have documented correspondence demonstrating that even organisations dedicated to supporting people experiencing suicidal distress can operate under policies that prevent them from proactively reaching out to someone whose wellbeing has been raised as a concern.

I was informed that the individual would have to contact the service themselves.

Think about that.

Someone raises concerns because they believe another human being might need support, and the response is essentially that the person must first come forward themselves.

What if they don’t?

What if shame prevents them? What if fear prevents them? What if their reputation, circumstances, emotional state or isolation makes asking for help the very thing they cannot bring themselves to do?

IS THAT NOT PRECISELY WHY ANOTHER HUMAN BEING MIGHT BE RAISING THE ALARM ON THEIR BEHALF?

I understand confidentiality. I understand autonomy. I understand safeguarding and the need to respect someone’s right to decline assistance.

But I also understand that a policy designed to protect human beings must be capable of being examined when its application might leave those same human beings without support.

And if your policy prevents one form of intervention, where is the alternative?

Where is the initiative? Where is the creativity? Where is the extension of care beyond the administrative boundaries of your service?

I am not suggesting that every concern warrants forced intervention. I am asking why there cannot be a proportionate, respectful attempt to offer support without demanding that a potentially vulnerable individual initiate everything themselves.

HOW MANY DEATHS HAVE OCCURRED BETWEEN SOMEONE RECOGNISING THE WARNING SIGNS AND SOMEONE ACTUALLY RECEIVING HELP?

I want that investigated.

Not just the number of people who died by suicide.

I want to know how many had previously asked for help. How many had someone else ask on their behalf. How many warnings were documented. What responses were given. What procedures were followed. And how many opportunities for meaningful intervention were missed.

Because following policy does not automatically mean you have fulfilled your duty of care.

And having a humanitarian mission written on your website does not automatically make your actions humanitarian.

A BADGE OF HONOUR DOES NOT GIVE YOU HONOUR. YOUR ACTIONS DO.

I have preserved the correspondence.

And I intend to continue examining the distance between what our institutions claim to exist for and what their procedures actually allow them to do.

Because humanity cannot continue creating systems in the name of protecting human life, only to treat compliance with those systems as the final measure of whether enough was done.

THE PURPOSE OF A SUICIDE PREVENTION SERVICE IS NOT TO SUCCESSFULLY FOLLOW A PROCEDURE.

THE PURPOSE IS TO HELP PREVENT THE LOSS OF HUMAN LIFE.

And when those two objectives come into tension, that is precisely where accountability must begin.

HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE WE ALREADY LOST WHILE EVERYONE WAS DOING THEIR JOB?

— SNW | SHS – Human First