Last week, finally, the government initiated steps that will soon, one hopes, lead to the decriminalisation of attempted suicide, a crucial measure in grappling with the stigma attached to fatal and non-fatal self harm. The seven-part Suicide Prevention Bill tabled in the National Assembly last Thursday by Minister of Health Dr Frank Anthony is intended to do much more as it also addresses, among other things, mandatory counselling following suicide attempts, responsible media coverage, and establishes a broad-based commission that will tackle a prevention plan as well as prevention centres across the country.
It is difficult to imagine this bill not being passed unanimously given the good it is expected to achieve in terms of setting the stage for a reduction in the indecently high national per capita rate of suicide. Obviously, the legislation itself will not prevent people from contemplating and initiating suicide, but it will, hopefully and in time, allow for the provision of more non-discriminatory spaces where help is offered.
In essence, considering the alternative, this Suicide Prevention Bill is a positive course of action. There are, however, parts of it that can be described as disturbing.
There is no doubt that much of what the bill proposes could have already been tackled. For example, amendments to the Criminal Law (Offences) Act and the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, both of which the new bill cites, would have effectively addressed the decriminalisation of attempted suicide years ago. Successive governments chose to ignore taking this route for over two decades for no immediately discernible reason.
Furthermore, a national suicide prevention strategy spanning 2015 to 2020, was developed under the PPP/C government in 2014 and adopted and implemented by the APNU+AFC coalition when it took office. While the timeline on that strategy has expired, its objectives are ever relevant, as are the interventions taken. It would be counterproductive to reinvent the wheel at this time, so one hopes the proposed plan simply builds on what is already in place.
Inclusiveness is an absolute, particularly in a society as divided as ours. However, the Suicide Prevention Commission, which the bill will establish, though already unnecessarily clunky, ignores a critical group. Along with the Chief Medical Officer, Chief Psychiatrist, Mental Health Director, Childcare and Protection Agency Director and Chief Education Officer as ex-officio members, the commission will comprise a medical practitioner, a psychiatrist, and representatives from the Guyana Nurses Association, the Bar Association, the Association of Professional Social Workers, the Guyana Police Force, the Ministry of Human Services and Social Security, the Private Sector Commission, the National Toshaos Council and one each from the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religions.
The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) community has seemingly been disregarded in this setup. This is disheartening, especially because several studies and surveys in other countries have revealed high levels of suicide ideation in the LGBTQ community. This is particularly prevalent among LGBTQ youth many of whom are ostracised and bullied which can lead to anxiety and depression. Moreover, mental health care tailored to their specific needs is usually non-existent.
Meanwhile, one hopes that this bill will also fully reveal the true objectionable nature of the link between suicides and access to deadly pesticides. This needs to be confronted and fixed. The controls currently in place do not protect against nor prevent injudicious use of these poisons. Complete bans are necessary in some instances and should be implemented, particularly as there are non-toxic alternatives that are readily available.
Meantime, in what one supposes is an attempt to sternly take aim at the known association between irresponsible and sensational media reports on suicide and an uptick in attempts and actual suicides, the bill seeks to criminalise such news in all formats. This means that guidelines on suicide reporting will become law, digression from which will be punishable by hefty fines – $100,000 and $2 million were the amounts quoted – as well as up to three months in prison, according to the bill.
Obviously, the media should avoid publishing content/details that normalise suicide or lead to contagion. However, is making imprudent and/or ignorant reporting a criminal act the best option? Where is the evidence that such a step will lead to responsible reporting? There is none of course because one is hard-pressed to find a country where such a law exists. The government should be concerned that this might be interpreted as an attempt at media control; or is it? This is a conundrum.
It must be noted too that while reckless reporting on suicide has led to copycatting, there is always an underlying cause including but not limited to use of certain medications, mental, physical and sexual abuse, feelings of hopelessness and inadequacy, addiction or substance abuse, other forms of trauma and mental health problems in general. The best recourse is always continuous education, not only for the media, but the wider population.
