Thi will never cure the underlying cause of suicides, of course, but adding even slight obstacles has proven to have an effect on suicide rates. Many suicides aren't thoughtfully planned out, but are just a combination of motive and easy opportunity. Even adding something as seemingly silly as a moderately difficult to climb fence to a bridge can reduce suicide rates.
This is a fine measure, assuming that it's followed by investment into mental health. I do believe it'll save lives, even if it's just a few, but the necessity proves that there's still a lot that needs to be done.
Right, but it is really important that you follow up with psychological help.
Sometimes I wonder if suicide prevention measures like this just remove the last bit of agency that people have, and while they will live on, they will just suffer silently. Maybe suicides are not thoughtfully planned out, but they are often preceeded by a very long phase of suicidal thoughts and rumination, and sometimes fixation on specific methods (e.g. a certain bridge, or in this case a fan). Similarly, by not reporting on suicides you prevent some, but you basically take away their last voice. I don't know, I think it is a very hard dilemma.
That is all assuming that all will remain suffering. How likely is that? It seems much more likely that some may look on this dark period in their life and be grateful they didn't go through with a suicide.
I've been severely depressed and borderline suicidal twice. The second time was worse than the first. Baking a single potato was the first sign I was pulling out of it. I could barely walk. It was bad. I prayed a lot, and I'm usually the pithy type with prayer.
The only reason I consider it borderline suicidal is that I had an internal rule to call 911 the first moment I started making plans and I think that kept my mind away from doing that because I didn't want to get checked into a mental hospital.
I cannot express to you just how happy I am to have held on. I am truly joyous again. It seemed impossible during the dark times.
I can't speak for everyone, I believe in free will to some extent, but I also believe that life is precious and sacred. Sometimes all someone needs to do is to just keep holding on and pushing through and that really easy to jump off of bridge that they have to walk by every day is not helping one bit.
Anyway, if anyone is reading this and is struggling like I have, please feel free to email me if you want advice or even if you just want someone to vent to.
I wonder if this is a bigger problem now than it was when I as a student forty five years ago. In those days a degree was not such a necessity as it is now but was even more worth having. Where and when (Exeter Uni. '74-'77) I studied the drop out rate in the first year was fairly high as people discovered that they were not suited to academic study, felt they had chosen the wrong subject, or were simply not capable. A noticeable minority didn't return after the Christmas holiday having done just one term.
The result was that the student body was composed to a greater degree of people who really wanted to be there doing what they were doing and to a slightly greater degree capable of doing it. I suspect that this would mean a slightly lesser incidence of depression.
I can easily imagine that a lot of students now also feel that they are unsuited to study but also feel that they must continue with the degree because the piece of paper they receive at the end is so important now because so many jobs demand it. So instead of dropping out and, perhaps, taking a vocational course instead they continue studying a subject that is beyond them or perhaps merely uninteresting.
Of course this is just speculation that seems plausible to me. Are there any good and approachable statistical analyses on the subject?
Some suicides are after long rumination, others are momentary impulse. Sometimes triggered by psychosis, bout of paranoia, manic phase, PTSD or something other of the sort acting out. There are people who have multiple suicidal attempts, but from what I recall from stats many try once and that is it.
Following may be biased sample, but when I read mental health forums a while ago there were people who wanted to try suicide in the past and were glad it did not worked out.
I remember a story about an army that had a lot of suicides when soldiers would go home and take their gun with them. Not allowing them to take their gun home apparently really cut down on the suicides. Having a bit more time to think about it can save lives.
But of course they should still address the underlying reasons that make people consider suicide.
It used to be the case in the US that women attempted suicide at a higher rate than men, but men succeed at a higher rate. The difference was said to be the method, and of course guns were a favored method with men.
It is still the case that women attempted suicides is higher and the results a lot lower, but as far as I remember in most cases for women it was just a way to cry for help, not to actually do it, while men were on the other side. I cannot find a link right now, I think it was a video of a psychology class.
I think for most it's a cry for help, but some people die before they get the help because their method is too effective.
Of course there are also people who have carefully considered their options and decided they really want to die, but I suspect that's a very different group.
Intention of success is hard to know... What we do know is women use less lethal methods like pills, rather guys who use more lethal methods like firearms.
You can do that by comparing the rates in various states against the rate of firearm ownership. There does seem to be a positive correlation between firearm ownership and suicide in the United States, although other correlations are equally present and might be causative as well. Rural areas tend to to have high suicide rates[0], and tend to both be more poor and have more firearms than urban areas per capita.
Globally it's more complicated, as there are plenty of countries with fewer firearms than the US and more suicides, as well as countries with fewer firearms and fewer suicides. Material conditions (poverty, etc.), prevailing attitudes around substance use, hard to describe social well being factors, and stigma/quality of mental health care seem to be factors.
For my part, I think that easy access to a means of suicide, such as firearms, is one part of the equation, but not the dominant part. The dominant part is the prevailing experience in the population as a whole, as a population that feels like it's lost hope is more likely to attempt suicide on average than one that has not. But it does seem like wide spread misery and access to an easy and quick means of suicide is a very bad combination.
Doing the comparison between South Korea and USA, restricting firearm access look to be increasing suicide rate. Of course this is not true, just an extreme outlier, the point is that cultural differences have a much stronger impact than access to a particular method.
The Turkish Army fitted sheet metal trigger guard boxes designed to make it harder for a depressed conscript to pull the trigger on their G3 rifle when the muzzle is in their mouth or under their chin.
It’s a good point. There are places / mechanisms that become iconic and if you remove that or make it harder, people don’t necessarily move to something else.
Palo Alto had a spate of suicides at a particular crossing, so they added guards and fences, and the suicides did not significantly move to other stops.
Suicide isn't logical or rational. It's almost always the result of a temporary state of mind, therefor it matters how accessible the means of ending one's life is.
Easy and instant access to firearms for example leads to way more successful (and even just attempted) suicides because it takes less time to take out a gun and shoot than virtually anything else.
Actually I did not consider what you meant with "almost always", because it is quite fuzzy and the value of that variable will may change over the discussion.
> Would they be higher with easier access to firearms?
Quite possibly. Is there a reason to think they would not?
And yes, culture where suicide can be honorable or beautiful ending will likely have more suicides. Western tradition was treating suicide as a sin and stigma.
Yes, It could be dishonorable to use a firearm.
A little bit of pain may make you look more manly, such stuff.
The socio-cultural embedding of an an act that makes it logical and rational.
This is bullshit. It may or may not be depending on individual conditions. If someone knows that they will suffer significatly for the rest of their lives, then it's entirely logical ans rational for them to end their life. It would be irrational to continue living if the cons were guaranteed (or even had a high likelyhood) to outweigh the pros.
And for me "suffering" is not that logical or rational at all, for that matter. The expectation of such suffering can be reasonable. The willingness to end this suffering can be reasonable. This, however, is a small minority of suicides, suicide attempts and even more so, suicidal ideation.
No, I didn't. You wrote "Suicide isn't logical or rational." not that suicide almost always isn't logical or rational; and then you gave an explanation that you claimed (without evidence or argument) is "almost always" the case.
> This, however, is a small minority of suicides, suicide attempts and even more so, suicidal ideation.
What data do you base this on and why do you believe that data to be representative?
This isn't even true in anything but a irrelevantly literal way, first of all. There are incurable diseases which can cause massive suffering. It would be irrational to live with one when consensus is that a cure won't be remotely on the horizon for one's lifetime. Sure, something could come up unexpectedly but you could also win the lotto too and it's irrational to play that.
Second of all, your argument invalidates all decision making and planning, so is really a reductio ad absurdum for itself.
Unless you think hope is always logical or rational, then there are some situations in which suicide can be logical or rational. Or maybe simply humane, if you want. While reducing impulse suicides (and all suicides) is a noble goal, saying suicide isn't logical or rational to me is downplaying and disconnecting from the suffering of those that need the support (and not the judgement) the most.
Probably the fencing. We have enough pseudo-experiments now that we can say the fencing makes a difference. There's a carpark in the UK that had trouble adding fencing, so they closed the top level.
I do not deny that it is a solution for spontaneous suicides in a younger (male?) demographics.
Do suicide methods of women or middle aged/elderly people differ?
What types of suicides do access restricting measures prevent?
Do people change methods?
And so on.
Before I read your comment, I came here thinking they are patching the symptoms rather than diagnosing and fixing the actual root cause.
Just understood, it's more important to reduce the easy of committing suicide before solving the actual problem. Thanks for the wonderful comment.
Most accidents happen in the own households. I won't be more specific to give any suggestions but this approach makes the likely root cause - hardship in the pandemic - even worse.
> This is a fine measure, assuming that it's followed by investment into mental health.
More recreational opportunities and less pressure during studies are probably more helpful. From a documentary I've seen recently stress at India's universities must be extreme in some cases.
This may be true, however after living in the tropics for many years I can attest that if you're unable to afford Air conditioning, someone taking your fan away would be enough to send even the happiest person over the edge.
> This is a fine measure, assuming that it's followed by investment into mental health.
I don't know if it's a problem with the institution or a problem with the reporting but you could avoid a lot of "But they're not fixing the root cause, just the symptoms." outrage just by confirming this assumption. More engagement I guess...
Everyone knows that fixing the root cause is the way to go, it's weird to see that some people seem to think patching symptoms and fixing the underlying issue are two opposite things and you somehow only can do one or the other and not both.
There's also the question whether any given institution is even capable of addressing the underlying causes, or whether it's in its best interest to do so. Sometimes the causes are big and deeply rooted, and a college is not capable of pushing back the metaphorical tide.
Focusing in on students specifically, I suspect (but do not know) that the extremely high pressure nature of going to a University in India is a factor. If that assumption is true, it's not clear whether the University is capable or willing to change that.
The claim is that they do reduce overall suicide rates. They are not offseted by more suicides at other places or later on.
Generally, as far as I can tell from reading about suicides and mental health, this is largely settled research. I dont understand why there is so much opposition to it on HN as if it was something new or controversial.
> I dont understand why there is so much opposition to it on HN as if it was something new or controversial.
The HN crowd likes to question everything because this is one of the ways we learn. Being unfamiliar with well settled research on the subject is a contributing factor. Few would question the Earth is round por that birds aren't robots because we all know that, but when it comes to niche knowledge, the questioning is more frequent.
This looks as bikeshedding. If you want to eliminate suicides, finding and fixing the motivation to commit the act is the way to go. Having a fan on a ceiling is not an opportunity, just one of the many available means to an end and not a compelling one, so it is really a way to pretending to care while not doing the right thing.
The study do highlight some conditions. Means restriction is mostly effective when the suicide method is common and highly lethal, its more effective in reducing suicide for women then for men, and when the specific means restriction need to be culturally supported. The specific method also need to be popularly known among the population.
Import note that the study does actually not compare alternative suicide-prevention strategies. It is a meta study of mean restriction and not a meta study of suicide-prevention strategies. It does not compare the effectiveness of healthcare, reducing risk factors, hotlines and others suicide-prevention strategies.
Well you've solved the immediate problem of having zero further opportunity to solve the underlying problem (because they're dead).
One point made in the linked article is that identifying risk in individuals isn't something we've found a good way to do. If we know who needs help, helping them is better than removing a fan. But we usually don't know who needs help, despite a variety of sensible-seeming approaches to figuring it out.
There's still an argument that aside from the individual level, we should address things at the societal level: what socioeconomic forces contribute to people being in tough situations where suicide seems like the only way out, and how can we change those socioeconomic forces?
That's a great question and a great place to focus our energy. And, while we're working on changing the world in bigger ways, we can make it a safer place.
Means restriction is an effective way of preventing a lot of things. To the point we have phrases like "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. You seem to be hinting at something, rather than being direct, but it's not clear what you're hinting at.
It's trivial to take the direct approach of "Let's just treat the symptom."
Symptoms are caused by underlying disease. If you have people killing themselves in excessive numbers, one should not look at the means they employed as the problem. Doing so, is having a hammer, therefore the nail (removal of the offending thing, in this case the instrument of suicide.)
Treat. The. Disease. Why are they suicidal?
Overly high standards/expectation? High stress? Corrupt systems? Social stigma? Failure to teach/communicate/cross cultural divides? Miscalibrated assessment methodologies? Lack of opportunity or alternatives in the face of failure? Physical stressors? Bad nutrition, poor food, unsafe environment?
To stop at "just get rid of offensive thing" in this particular case is to indulge in willful ignorance of the root cause of suicidal ideation; the final conclusive cessation of suffering. What is causing them to suffer?
Relieve that. Engage in 2nd and higher order thinking.
I am not convinced it is as effective as pretended, otherwise the Mapo Bridge in Seoul would be razed and the Aokigahara Forest in Japan would be fenced with barbed wire.
They are replacing ceiling fans with wall mounted fans, otherwise non suicide death by heat exhaustion would increase. India is a poorer developing country, so actual AC in the dorms is still out of the question.
That's not true at all. Having AC in dorms is easily possible and affordable too. Centralized AC units comes to mind. Its there in all Government offices anyways.
The reason is different and it is even more silly. It has to do with generation gap. If you complain, as a student, about lack of any facilities the immediate response you get from the person in charge (typically of my parent's generation) is: "We used to study under candle light. See how weak you people are. You can't tolerate few hours of electricity cut". Now what answer can you give to this? It was very common when I was in NITK, Surathkal where we used to get cold water for bath (many would use electric heaters to warm water). When asked for installing geysers the typical answer would be: "This is coastal area. You should bathe in cold water. It is better for your health". But they had plenty of money to build 6 international standard mega blocks (each with 7 floors) but "apparently" no money to invest in ACs and hot water. Its a generation gap issue. "Let them struggle a bit. They'll understand harshness of life that way. Else they'll become lazy". Nothing to do with lack of money.
Note that this is not the case with private institutions which are much better equipped. Only with Government funded institutions. Which is a huge irony because the Government literally wastes money building new educational blocks and hostel blocks but doesn't invest a tiny portion of it in improving the facilities within those blocks. We just have to wait 1 generation more to fix these things. It is a mindset issue.
Why would you think that? The top universities in places like India and China get their positions mainly by selecting the brightest students, they don’t actually throw a lot resources their way, and these students are often paying their living expenses themselves or with a small stipend or subsidy.
No, I know multiple people who presently live there and have lived there in the past.
This is also one of the richest universities of India- not merely one of the best.
I also heard of someone who studied medicine at AIIMS Delhi. It is another of rich institutions of India. The rooms, although small, will match a 3 star hotel in terms of amenities. The same is simply not true for IISc. Despite being one of the richest unis of India, their amenities do not match that of AIIMS Delhi.
But that institute is not cash-sterved as Indian institutes go. The labs are great, the faculties are the same. Many of them can easily teach at any US uni.
What I think is the reason of absence of ACs in rooms is the Bangalore weather.
During most of the year, you really don't need an AC or even a ceiling fan.
Nah, you have to be at the very top spots of standardized tests for admission at each level.
At undergrad level, there is the BS (Research) programme, where you get through the KVPY exam, a specialised test for HS seniors for entry to this school only. (You can look up papers if you want)
Then, for entry to grad school, you have to rank near the top (~200 , ~60-100 for AI) among 100k (for CS paper candidates). And then you have to pass rigorous technical, and personality interview(s).
So, they take in the best students.
This institute always ranks the highest in internal rankings.
The labs are top-notch, the uni is cash-rich, and the faculty is as good as US unis (maybe not Stanford, Ivies, etc.).
I know multiple people who went there and/or still lives there.
I hear only good things.
But, yes, the people who are opting for grad schools after a 4 year CS degree are almost always from upper middle class and rich families (studies in India are almost always funded by parents unless you were already earning in a full-time job).
So, yes, the populace you would find there are almost all from affluent families, but there are some people from financially challenged families, too.
The undergrad exams are very hard and you can appear only once. I blew my one chance because I had severe typhoid at the time of the exam!
Now, if my plans to get into a grad school in North America / EU does not pan out, IISc is right at the top of my choice list in India.
From the article, the data is muddy and cause-effect is not claimable:
> For example, the effects in Texas are some of the highest in the country. Suicide rates have not declined over recent decades, even with the introduction and wide adaptation of air conditioning. If anything, the researchers say, the effect has grown stronger over time.
It's a boondoggle. With a bonus effect of increasing deaths from extreme heat.
Now, it might seem rude of me, but I am against killing people that want to live in order to maybe save people that want to die.
edit
In addition, 88 per cent of students said they did not think that “replacing ceiling fans with wall-mounted fans in all IISc hostels (would) help curb student suicide”.
I still say it's a boondoggle, the resources could be better spent elsewhere. However, this looks like a really small matter, one institute of learning a relatively small number of suicides. I'm going to relax and not worry about it.
end edit
> Now, it might seem rude of me, but I am against killing people that want to live in order to maybe save people that want to die.
The point is that most times people who commit suicide don't want to die, they simply feel life is currently so awful, and they is so little hope of change, that there is no alternative.
Those thoughts are usually transitory and people on the other side express relief that steps were taken to stop them, buying time in which to heal.
That is a common meme, but it’s wrong. For every ten people who attempt suicide and fail, only one will eventually die by suicide[0]. 70% of survivors will never even reattempt suicide, and only 7% or so of suicide survivors will eventually successfully commit suicide.
Furthermore, I’m disturbed by the cavalier attitude here. Suicide isn’t a predestined thing that we’re helpless to prevent as a society. There is real suffering and we can do something about it in aggregate. Framing it as something “they’ll do anyways” is both factually incorrect, and absolves society of any responsibility to help prevent suicide.
> Suicide isn’t a predestined thing that we’re helpless to prevent as a society. There is real suffering and we can do something about it in aggregate.
I agree with most of your comment but somewhat disagree with this. Suicide is not, itself, suffering. It's the result of suffering. David Foster Wallace compared suicide to jumping from a burning building; it's not that necessarily that jumping seems like a way out, it's something you are driven to because of your fear of the flames.
Speaking only for myself, as someone who has been depressed to the point of being suicidal before and still has recurrent bouts of strong depression, I find the obsessive focus on the issue of suicide unhelpful and hurtful. It is, so to speak, putting bars on the windows so that we have to face the flames instead. It is hard to convey to someone who hasn't experienced depression how it can turn every second of living into pure agony.
I agree that taking away easy routes to suicide is a good thing. I accept the research which says that most people attempt it rashly, though I don't think you can say that a low re-attempt rate indicates a rash decision. Suicide hotlines are good things. I do believe strongly that people have a right to die, including for persistent depression, if they so wish.
If anyone out there actually cares about depressed people, the best way to help them is to help fix the depression; give us a better way out than suicide and we'll take it. This means fixing healthcare in America, for example; a top-class universal healthcare system with support for mental health would do a world of good. Secondarily, making sure people have financial security - lift people out of poverty and homelessness. Give them access to community resources and activities. The fact that people are so willing to take on suicide as a problem, but not willing to resolve its causes pains me.
Yes, I intended the phrase “suffering” to encompass the causes leading to suicide as well, and clearly cut my wording a bit too short for clarity. My apologies.
> Furthermore, I’m disturbed by the cavalier attitude here. Suicide isn’t a predestined thing that we’re helpless to prevent as a society.
That wasn’t the point that people were making. The point they were making is that removing fans doesn’t address the underlying mental health issues. If anything, arguing that everyone is ok now because fewer people are dying is the cavalier attitude because it overlooks the daily struggles that many will still be having.
Thus regardless of the points you’ve put excellently in your first paragraph, the students mental health issues do also need to be addressed too.
So I see your rebuttal as complimentary to the other points rather than fully dismissing them (ie it shouldn’t be “either/or” but rather “both things needs doing”).
> That wasn’t the point that people were making. The point they were making is that removing fans doesn’t address the underlying mental health issues.
That is a fair argument, but not how I interpreted GP. In the context it seemed like they were arguing against any measure that removes means of suicide away from people because “they’ll just do it regardless”.
> If anything, arguing that everyone is ok now because fewer people are dying
Literally nobody here is saying this. Everyone here has acknowledged that this doesn’t solve the underlying mental health issues (or material issues, per a now dead comment), but might be a good band aid (over a “bullet wound” per another commenter).
What’s more common here is the acknowledgment that this doesn’t solve the mental health issue, and the grim realization that the university won’t do anything about it either way.
This then demonstrates how hard it is to understand the full context of a comment from only the short post and, I hope, makes you appreciate how important it is to assume a more charitable interpretation.
As for the rest of your post: I think we are in complete agreement.
No, it's ab out removing important equipment. Fans in hot weather really help if you don't have AC, As far as I know it gets quite hot in (all of) India. Now their fans are gone as a "hack" for some other problem. At the very least, life of those students will be more uncomfortable. Ceiling fans also have a number of advantages over others, like being mostly noiseless and creating vertical movement, so replacing them with desk fans won't be as good.
> As far as I know it gets quite hot in (all of) India
Nope this is a myth. India has all sorts of weather (from snowy winters to hot/humid/arid climate and everything in between). The institute this article points to is in Bangalore. Where temperatures are between 15 degree Celsius and 30 degree celsius throughout the year (only during peak summer does it touch 38 to max 40 degree celsius). You don't even need fans for most of the year. Not to mention Bangalore rains.
As there are many ways to commit suicide, school could equally tie everyone in padded cells, and tube feed students in order to avoid any suicide.
Be careful when using such studies, as future AI may use those and similar - to remove all freedoms from humans, arguing that humans are dangerous for themselves, thus creating new Matrix?!
Root cause can be maybe a terrible education system and society that is fit more for robots then humans. It just feels wrong blaming individuals for not wanting to participate in it.
Imaginative scenario so to politely avoid pointing finger to overly corrupt governments and individuals that could use similar excuse to limit your freedom, in one way or another.
Assuming teenagers and low 20 something’s are the similar the world over, they should have restricted access to terraces and rooftops for a variety of reasons unrelated to suicide. Alcohol and heights tend not to be very close friends, and my college restricted access to the latter as much as they could (the former was a lost cause).
Honestly my university giving us rooftop access for working on and setting up radio equipment was one of the most educational and enriching things I did there. Restricting access to rooftops for students seems like a terrible idea for education, where a lot of science literally happens on rooftops, whether with antennas or telescopes. (some students used the rooftop access to monitor fukushima reactor radiation in the atmosphere as well!)
Also: Never had a single accident or suicide for over 2 decades
There's a big difference between "we're going to the rooftop for a project" and "we just left the rooftop door permanently unlocked". The former is fine, the latter is where I'd say that the University is probably making a mistake.
Exceptions of course for high traffic rooftops specifically designed for human occupation, with appropriate amenities and guard rails. The ones my university locked off were either full of industrial equipment (ACs, etc.), or had low stone ledges that were no longer up to modern spec. Closing them off was the right call.
As a father of two in that age group, I would prefer to restrict their access especially to my precious world of perfect tranquility.
Assuming teenagers and low 20 something's are the similar the world over, which I find a bit debatable, there still is the question whether there were or are better models to cope with puberty and coming of age for the individual and society.
I wish the article had dwelled into IISc a bit more. It is one of the most sought after research institutions in India. Those who enter it are primarily motivated by an opportunity to advance their field. Though I haven't studied there I have interacted with those who have and have been to the campus on quite a few occasions.
IISc is very different from IITs other much talked about institution. While latter is full of students from poor/middle-class trying to break out of their economic situation IISc is purely about research. Few understand the pressures a researcher at IISc goes through. Research is hard, more so in India and it takes its toll on some of the finest minds.
Some students use drugs to enhance their performance. I expect that top schools have a lot more performance drug users than other schools. Many people using performance drugs do not rest enough, exercise, or manage stress. They eventually develop health problems like depression.
Some context that is missing in the article: this university has about 4000 students. [1]
So those 4 suicides this year represent 0.1% of the student population. For comparison, the suicide rate for the Indian population in general is closer to 0.01%. [2]
I think this is a genuinely good idea. (which should obviously be accompanied by actual rehabilitative options and de-stigmatization of mental health) I went to similar institute in India (NIT, the proverbial first losers), and 3 students hung themselves over the span on 2 years. (1 acquaintance, 1 friend) From what was made public, their decision to commit suicide was a rash one, tied to the fear of failure. (one was a break up)
I have been depressed before, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. But, the decision to go from crushing depression to suicide is often fast (span on a few days) and genuinely reversible, as long as the person lives. We know that far more men die due to suicide, due to their choice of a more fatal weapon (gun to the dead > slashing veins).
Making it harder to commit suicide gives institutions and social systems time to help the person out.
_______
Indians aged 18-19 at top engineering institutes are probably the most underdeveloped humans you will ever meet.
These kids sacrifice their entire personal/social/philosophical development for 2-6 years, to study 12+ hrs/day for the IIT-JEE entrance exam. They have no life, no hobbies, no personal aspirations outside getting into IIT.
Once they're in, they are often alone & underprepared for the general rigors of campus life. They feel too emotionally about their first relationship or they take their first failure too hard (I have had to talk my India CBSE top 10 rank friend out of harming himself, because he got a 'B' for the first time in his life. I kid you not).
Every part of this process is exploitative and unfair to the children. But, in a country where getting into IIT/IISc opens doors to the world's elite, you can hardly fault them/ their families for simply optimizing for the best value proposition.
_______
IMO, top Engineering institutes in India need to allow students some time to breathe after they come in. Let them live out their high-school days in some capacity during their freshman year of college. Let them find an identity that isn't tied to their grades and studies.
Lastly, but most importantly, teach them about mental health and struggles that they are bound to face. Help them truly grok that failure is an inevitable part of everyone's life. Unfortunately, I find that this is still under discussed even in elite universities in the US. What hope do these Indian institutes have?
I do not think mental health education is the answer, in a highly populated country like India and the pressure to succeed, it will never go away unless culture changes. The pressures in India are extreme and the preferential treatment of “backwards castes” has costs. Unless they de emphasize the culture, you’ll see this pattern as is the case in China, Japan, South Korea, and MIT.
My cousin faced the same issues, he now has an outlet for his frustrations and cares less about success that is ingrained in academia.
The worst part about this is many people in this worldview expect it to be easy after. India has the lowest divorce rate so it’s possible it’s not a delusion to get a good wife with a good job, but society is changing, and with no social skills these people face more problems later.
You have written such a thoughtful reply that it honestly makes me sad. Why can't something so basic, that each of us feel within us does not occur to or resonate with hundreds of qualified (I imagine) administrators or policy makers?
Obviously an emotive topic and I hope to tread lightly.
Overwhelmingly people who have bear miss suicide attempts later are glad they did not do it.
Suicide is rarely a release from trouble, causing massive problems for those who are left, often burdening them with a lifetime of struggle.
Naturally we ache at the thought of removing useful ceilung fans rather than addressing the root cause. Yet who would criticise a seat belt, saying we just need to drive safely?
Is this not the same argument with gun control? Remove the guns, solves gun violence?
On a similar note, I don’t think that teaching mental health is the solution. The pressures in India are terrible. MIT in the US has no legacy program, and has the highest suicide rates, and I know a few people that were committed rapidly and diagnosed haphazardly. This prevents suicide by imprisoning them in powerful psychoactive drugs (antipsychotics) and labeling them as schizophrenic, holding them against their free will to lower suicide stats.
The underlying issue is the pressure to succeed, and they will never remove that in India.
Why take down the fans? It’s survival of the fittest! /sarc
Humanity is fine with creating unneeded suffering in others but we will alway draw the line at ending human suffering.
It is the same with the homeless. Society is fine with us living on the street but will give you immediate housing if you want to end your suffering by suicide.
So, we could restructure education and society in a way that would eliminate suffering.
Isn’t this just a question of ease of substitution? If it’s a trivial to substitute hang yourself from x vs y or substitute Hanging for handful of pills - is the marginal benefit really there? I suspect not, but I do think from an administrators standpoint this has the effect of a) looking like they are doing something, b) pushing [embarrasing] suicides off campus/out of sight.
I think making suicide less accessible will result in fewer suicides on campus.
And I think making it more accessible will increase its rate.
Seems obvious.
But the headline isn't about that. It's about tut-tutting this backward institution. Because we, and the students union knows everything the school is doing to curb suicides beyond removing fans.
Can they do more? Maybe. How would I know. I've never heard of this school before.
I think the students are right that it's a bad idea. They don't want to lose their fellow students to suicide, but are still against replacing the fans. They are young and inexperienced so maybe a simple majority would be easy to dismiss but this is 90%.
What is causing high suicide rates in students? Is it the immense pressure to get perfect test results so they can be seen as successful by their overbearing parents who will label them as failures if they do not rank at the top of their class?
Measures like this show clearly that their concern is legal liability, not student welfare. Will it meaningfully reduce the number of suicides on campus? It might. But that isn't, and shouldn't be, the point.
Even if poor access to mental health resources is the root course, it is the right choice to make sure students survive longer to have a chance to get help.
Not enough, not even a start, but the right choice.
Wouldn't it make more sense to alter the ceiling fans so that excess weight (e.g. a body) will cause them to detach from the ceiling, preferably also triggering an alarm?
I went to a good magnet school with no fans or AC on the highest floor. It made such little sense to have the brightest students pass out, nap, not be able to learn and only one teacher had an AC he personally brought in.
I’ve been told by several Indian colleagues that mental health services in India are taboo, and generally reserved for the high dysfunctional who cannot be an active part in society (think very schizophrenic, for example).
(Former expat who spent a few years living near Delhi) you’d never see a person going crazy on the streets in India like they do in California. Their government provides some services to help people in those situations. Many families provide support to members with a mental illness.
However there’s little safety nets if you lose your job and your family relies on you, there aren’t as many chances to “catch up” or “get back on your feet” like you could in developed countries which does lead to suicide when people struggle with school or jobs. This unfortunately impacted many in the early Covid days. That looming fear of “one mistake and this all is over” is just a lot of weight to hold on your shoulders.
Indian readers, this is just my interpretation of things from spending several years living there. Please point out any inaccuracies in my thoughts as I’m still interested in understanding these issues better.
> you’d never see a person going crazy on the streets in India like they do in California.
I’ve visited Delhi before, and at the time was accosted by a seemingly insane beggar. I have yet to visit a developing country that didn’t have a few crazy people on the streets.
The awareness is growing now, especially in the internet generation. A lot of people in rural areas are quite out of touch with basic healthcare, let alone mental healthcare. India is too big to generalise: from Instagram influencers to beggars (watching whom will break your heart), there's a whole everything.
This is a fine measure, assuming that it's followed by investment into mental health. I do believe it'll save lives, even if it's just a few, but the necessity proves that there's still a lot that needs to be done.