Recently, I learned that the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline can trace your call. I didn’t know this. But the thing I did know about the Lifeline, and other suicide hotlines is that they can save your life. It is not surprising to me that the Lifeline uses every tool at its disposal to save lives, and I guess tracing calls is one of those tools. Some people have a distinct problem with this. I suspect they are missing a certain perspective when the Lifeline traces calls: they are missing the perspective of someone who is actually trying to save a life.
A Suicide Lifeline Can Trace Your Call, Says Mad in America
A couple of weeks ago, Mad in America published a piece by Rob Wipond called, “Suicide Hotlines Bill Themselves as Confidential — Even as Some Trace Your Call.” As is typical of everything from Mad in America, it takes an antipsychiatry stance and provides horror stories to back that up. That’s their thing.
As the title of the piece suggests, Wipond has an issue with suicide hotlines billing themselves as confidential and then tracing people’s calls. This is a fair point. Places like the Lifeline do say in bold letters that they are confidential. Tracing people’s calls does seem to suggest otherwise in some cases.
Wipond spins a tale of the evil suicide hotlines that are money-motivated and call the police on callers willy-nilly. He suggests this is harmful, particularly in cases where it results in psychiatric treatment without consent. And yes, that is a perspective you would always find on Mad in America.
He also says that people like me run “promotional” stories on them and that makes suicide hotlines more popular. He seems to suggest that this, too, is sinister.
But let’s unpack this a bit from a different perspective. Let’s look at it from the perspective of someone who is trying to save lives. Let’s look at it from my perspective.
Suicide Hotlines Do Everything They Can to Save Lives
In my case, I run two blogs on bipolar disorder and on Bipolar Burble, specifically, suicidal people reach out to me all the time. Typically, this is through comments that read like suicide notes. Readers never see these as I don’t allow them to appear online. I also get suicidal outcries on social media and through messages. I’m a bastion of such things, so I have a lot of experience with it.
And let me tell you, when a person comes to me and says they’re going to kill themselves, they first thing I do is tell them to get help. Get. Freaking. Help. Why do I do this? I do this so they don’t die. That’s my goal. My goal isn’t to shunt them to a particular number to support an organization and secure funding. My goal is not to have the police at the individual’s door. My goal is not to have them treated without consent. My goal is always to save their life. That’s it. Simple. And I would never, ever tell someone not to call the Lifeline because they possibly might trace the call. That’s ridiculous. People should not die because of the risk of a suicide hotline doing their very best to help them. Literally, the Lifeline calls in the authorities only when they feel danger is imminent. In other words, the Lifeline is just trying to save their life too.
Wipond actually has a quote in his story that pretty much sums up the concern:
“Bart Andrews sits on executive committees of the AAS [American Association of Suicidology]and the NSPL [National Suicide Prevention Lifeline], and is Chief Clinical Officer at a Missouri NSPL crisis center. He supports call-tracing, and says people need to understand how much call-attendants struggle with feelings of ‘moral liability.’
“‘You’ve got to ask yourself, which problem do you want to deal with? The person being dead, or them being angry that the police come out to make sure they’re safe?’ says Andrews. And families sometimes sue. ‘You’re not answering to the person you didn’t call the police on. If they end up dead, you’re answering to their loved ones.'”
And seriously, when I think about the choice between a really angry person and a dead person, I pick the person who is angry 10 times out of 10. They can hate me forever. I’m fine with that. But I don’t want their dead body at my feet. If I thought that I didn’t use every arrow in my quiver to try to get help for someone — suicide hotlines included — I could not live with myself.
And that is what an operator at the Lifeline is dealing with — a possible dead body. All they’re trying to do is avoid that.
How Many Calls Does the Suicide Lifeline Trace?
Wipond isn’t able to say how many calls the Lifeline traces unequivocally but the number he does find is that authorities are called in 2% of calls. This is the same as a suicide hotline in Canada. Now, I assume that in that 2% is also a significant number of calls where the person agrees to the calling of additional help — because, yes, operators on helplines do attempt to get consensus on these things long before they unilaterally make the decision to send someone out. And yes, callers do agree to this because they know they need help. It is brave and it is often necessary.
So what we have then, is less than one call in 50 resulting in the calling of authorities without the caller’s consent. That doesn’t seem like a lot to me. Again, if the person on the line says they are going to kill themselves, how could you prefer not tracing the call and just letting them die? Because that’s what we’re talking about. Not tracing the call and the person dying. That is not an outcome that is okay with me.
Treatment Without Consent After a Lifeline Call
Now, of course, as someone who is on an antipsychiatry site, Wipond has to mention how terrible treatment without consent is. I understand. It can be awful.
But there’s a teeny tiny percentage of people who are brought into a hospital that are actually kept without consent. Most of the time, people can’t get a bed. Hospitals don’t want these people. They certainly aren’t eager to take ones who shouldn’t be there.
So we have 1-in-50 calls that end up with authorities being called. A percentage of those end up with the person going to the hospital. And a fraction of those are actually admitted. And a fraction of those are admitted without consent. So what I’m saying is that we’re not talking about a huge number of people. Believe me, is not easy to get a person admitted to a hospital. Ask people who have been turned away after asking to be admitted. Ask the parents who are desperately trying to get help for a psychotic child but can’t. These people will tell you that treatment with or without consent can often be nearly impossible to get.
And I should mention that while Wipond paints a horror show of being treated without consent, many people who have been treated without consent actually emerge from treatment grateful. They are grateful they are no longer floridly psychotic. They are grateful they are no longer hurting the people in their lives. They are grateful they are alive. So, I fully acknowledge that treatment without consent can be horrible for some people, but it certainly isn’t for everyone. It’s actually a useful tool in some cases.
What to Do to Save Lives Instead of Tracing Calls
Tracing a call without agreement isn’t ideal. I’m the first to admit that. If you were talking to a LIfeline operator and the police showed up at your front door it would be jarring, to say the least. But what is the alternative? Near as I can tell, Wipond thinks that lawyer Susan Stefan has a good idea as to an alternative.
He writes:
“Stefan describes call-tracing as a ‘short-sighted’ policy, especially since many people she interviewed said they’d never again feel safe calling. ‘Rather than “stop people from killing themselves,” I think we need to rephrase the goal, and have it be “reduce people’s suffering and help them achieve a life they want to live.”‘”
Okay, there are two points there. First of all, Stefan says that people don’t feel comfortable calling a suicide hotline again. I get that. I also get that they’re alive to have that feeling.
Secondly, Stefan says we need to “reduce people’s suffering and help them achieve a life they want.”
Do the words “well, duh” mean anything to you?
Of course that should be the goal. That is the goal of what I do every day. I try to educate people about mental illness to make their lives better. I try to suggest ways of getting the lives they want. That is what I want for everyone.
But even if some magical program were put in place where that was actually possible on a large scale, you still have the problem of what to do in an emergency. Believe me, when someone calls the Lifeline and they are asking for advice on improving their employment situation, that’s not when the authorities are called. They are called when the person’s life is at risk. No matter how effective we are at helping people get better lives (and yes, obviously society needs to improve in that regard), there are always going to be emergencies where it makes sense to call in additional help and I have yet to hear an alternative for what to do in that situation.
Tracing Calls Makes Sense. Saving Lives Makes Sense
Look, if I had the ability to trace emails or comments and get help for the people who write acutely suicidal messages that refuse to get help themselves, I would do so. That’s the truth. I believe in saving lives. I believe in saving every life. Just ask suicide survivors how they feel about not dying. Most of us are pretty grateful that didn’t happen. And most of us know that it’s worth a great price to save someone else’s life.
So yes, it must be awful to have the police show up at your door. (And as I’ve written before, we need to defund the police so there are people who can deal with these types of situations more effectively.) I also acknowledge that operators don’t always judge the situation perfectly and sometimes the authorities get called inappropriately. (This is mentioned in the article.) And I’m also sure that the police aren’t always great and that sometimes hospitals are awful. The mental health system in the US is broken, no doubt about that. None of that, however, provides a reason not to do everything you can to save a life. None of that provides an alternative to sending help to the people who need it. I’ve, personally, done it and I would do it again.
Yes, I wish we lived in a world where people in mental health crises were treated differently, and better. But while we’re wishing for things, I also wish we lived in a world where people didn’t feel the need to kill themselves. We do not live in these worlds, we need to deal with the world we’re in.
So as long as people are trying to kill themselves and people can do anything about it, I think we should. It’s our job to be our brother’s keeper when he cannot. It our job to save lives that are in risk. There’s nothing sinister or evil about that.
P.S. I think it’s important to mention here that people providing other forms of help, like psychotherapists, also break confidentiality at times — at times when your life is at imminent risk. Therapists may be more open about this point, however.
DO INVOLUNTARY HOSPITALIZATION TRULY “SAVE LIVES” OR DO THEY RUIN THEM IN THE LONG RUN?
Disturbing info regarding treatment of
children and youth in BC
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-children-youth-representative-report-involuntary-detention-overdose-1.5879063
“162% increase in children held (involuntarily) under (Mental Health) act”
“youth worried about being detained would fear asking for help”
B.C. children’s advocate says youth with mental illness retraumatized by involuntary hospitalizations
British Columbia’s representative for children and youth says she has heard harrowing stories from those who were involuntarily hospitalized for a mental illness without access to legal advice.
“Our main focus “continues” (should be) on boosting the voluntary system of care so young people can get help early on, before smaller problems become larger ones (REALISTCALLY THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN WITH A SYSTEM ALREADY JAMMED UP WITH INVOLUNTARY ADMISSIONS)
Our province needs to “strengthen safeguards in the involuntary detention and treatment of youth within the mental health system [and] enhance opportunities for young people to have a say in their treatment
B.C. Civil Liberties Association also expressed its support for the report. Harsha Walia, the association’s executive director, said one of the most stark findings in the report is that MORE CHILDREN AND YOUTH WERE RECEIVING INVOLUNTARY SERVICES THAN VOLUNTARY SERVICES.
“We know that any time someone seeks mental health support, if it is coerced, then that will have adverse effects in the long run,” said Walia.
“There’s ripple effects to that kind of adversarial approach to health care rather than a supportive voluntary approach to health care.”
THIS MEANS THAT YOUNG DEVELOPING BRAINS ARE BEING ALTERED BY POWERFUL PSYCH MEDS AGAINST THEIR WILL WHICH IN MY HUMBLE OPINION IS A TRAVESTY
MAKE NO MISTAKE, INVOLUNTARY HOSPITALIZATION ARE TRAUMATIZING AND THEY TEACH VULNERABLE PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE INTRINSICALLY POWERLESS OVER THEIR BODY WITH NO LEGAL RECOURSE
Natasha
Here’s the link to support my claim that 3/4 of patients are involuntarily committed to hospital. Info is from Canadian Association of Mental Health. Is that reliable enough for you!
https://www.camh.ca/en/camh-news-and-stories/involuntary-psychiatric-admissions-have-increased-significantly-in-ontario
If you can’t open this link, then you can Google “Ontario Mental Health Involuntary Committment” to find it.
So that’s 3/4 of psychiatric inpatient hospital admissions, which is very different than 3/4 of psychiatric patients!
That number doesn’t surprise me. The system is so jammed up that it’s very difficult for people who want to be admitted for treatment (i.e. voluntary inpatient) to do so. Too often they’re turned away as not sick enough because there’s no beds.
Hi Mark,
That is a really good point. That stat is likely more indicative of the lack of beds than anything else.
– Natasha Tracy
The trouble with call tracing is that it is used for people who call the hotlines with no actual intention of killing themselves. After the horrible experience they have with shitty cops and shitty hospitals, they start to actually think *seriously* about killing themselves. I have this perspective 2nd-hand but from a close relative. He didn’t end up killing himself and is completely safe now but his experience was horrific, absolutely horrific.
Most of the “active interventions” are for people who never really intended to kill themselves. They just want a bit of attention and for someone to actually listen to them for once. I would be willing to bet that the lives lost to suicide *after* a forced hospitalization are at least equal to the lives saved by a forced hospitalization.
Whoa, slow down there Nellie…
Are you truly aware of exactly how damaging the effects of involuntary hospitalization is on an indiviual and the therapeutic relationship? My guess is a big fat NO
I speak from experience when I say how utterly horrific and tramatizing it can be. Without a doubt it does more damage than good, in the long run. I am still suffering the effects of it 8 years later!!!
Without trust there can be NO therapeutic relationship. Eventually patients will be released from hospital… what then Sherlock?
In Ontario more than 3/4 of psychiatric patients we’re involuntarily committed!!!
The BC government has been trying to push Bill 22 through so they can keep youth who overdose involuntarily in hospital up to 7 days.
Another HUGE problem is not having adequate aftercare follow up when a person gets out
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5707550
Unlike most of Canada, B.C. does not provide involuntary detention patients with legal representation
https://canadaopcatproject.ca/2019/03/09/committed-to-change/
No consent for treatment form on 24% of patient files
No notification of rights form on 51% of patient files
Designated facilities completed all 5 required forms only 28% of the time
Involuntary Patients Have Rights That Are Regularly Being Trampled On In BC
https://www.bcmhrb.ca/app/uploads/sites/431/2019/03/OMB-Committed-to-Change-FINAL-web.pdf
In June 2017, a number of directors of designated facilities admitted and detained people involuntarily under the Mental Health Act without first receiving:
a. medical certicates in the prescribed Medical Certicate (Form 4), contrary to section 22 of the Mental Health Act, or
b. medical certicates in the prescribed Form 4 that contained adequate information and reasons to demonstrate how the patients met the statutory criteria for involuntary admission
In June 2017, a number of directors of designated facilities acted contrary to section 24 of the Mental Health Act by renewing patients’ involuntary admissions without first receiving completed renewal forms (Form 6) explaining how the patients met the statutory criteria for continued involuntary detention.
In June 2017, a number of directors of designated facilities acted contrary to the Mental Health Act and the Mental Health Regulation in failing to ensure that consent for treatment forms (Form 5) were completed for all involuntarily admitted patients before psychiatric treatment was provided to those patients.
In June 2017, a number of directors of designated facilities acted contrary to section 8 of the Mental Health Act in permitting the psychiatric treatment of involuntarily detained patients in circumstances where the patient objected to treatment and no Consent for Treatment (Form 5) was completed.
The University Hospital of Northern British Columbia acted improperly in failing to ensure that consent for treatment forms (Form 5) were completed for involuntary patients who were admitted under the Mental Health Act, in circumstances where it knew or should have known that the forms were not being completed as a matter of practice.
Except in circumstances where there is no alternative, the practice of having the director who authorizes treatment on behalf of an involuntary patient also act as the prescribing physician is unreasonable because it fails to provide for an adequate separation of duties.
In June 2017, a number of directors of designated facilities authorized psychiatric treatment of involuntarily detained patients in circumstances where the consent for treatment forms (Form 5s) did not include suffcient details about the nature of the proposed treatment to support the directors’ authorization decisions.
In June 2017, a number of designated facilities followed an unreasonable process in using boilerplate language, including rubber stamps, to describe treatment in consent for treatment forms (Form 5), in that the descriptions failed to adequately identify the specifc treatment proposed for individual patients.
In June 2017, a number of directors of designated facilities purported to authorize non-psychiatric medical treatment of involuntary patients through the use of a Consent for Treatment (Form 5), despite the lack of legal authority to do so.
In June 2017, a number of directors of designated facilities acted contrary to section 34 of the Mental Health Act in failing to provide patients, immediately or at all, with notice of their rights in the prescribed Notifcation to Involuntary Patient of Rights under the Mental Health Act (Form 13).
In June 2017, a number of directors of designated facilities acted contrary to section 1 of the Mental Health Act and section 11(15) of the Mental Health Regulation in failing to ensure that patients were given an opportunity to nominate a near relative to be notifed of their admission using the prescribed Nomination of Near Relative (Form 15).
In June 2017, a number of directors of designated facilities acted contrary to section 34.2 of the Mental Health Act in failing to ensure that notice of the patient’s involuntary admission was provided, immediately or at all, to either a near relative or the Public Guardian and Trustee, using the prescribed Notifcation to Near Relative (Form 16).
The practice at the Forensic Psychiatric Institute and the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions of not completing Nomination of Near Relative (Form 15) and Notifcation to Near Relative (Form 16) for patients who are involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act is contrary to section 11(15) of the Mental Health Regulation and sections 1 and 34.2 of the Mental Health Act.
The failure of directors of designated facilities to take steps to confirm that notification to near relative forms (Form 16) were received by the addressees is unreasonable.
Section of 34.2(4) of the Mental Health Act, which provides that the director’s notification duties are discharged by notifying the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia (PGT) of a patient’s involuntary admission where no near relative can be identied, establishes an unreasonable procedure for patients who are not PGT clients.
In June 2017, a number of directors of designated facilities repeatedly and consistently failed to follow the safeguards in the Mental Health Act, as evidenced by the lack of timely and adequate completion of Forms 4, 5, 6, 13, 15 and 16. The systemic failure to follow the procedural safeguards required by the Mental Health Act is incompatible with the protection of the values of individual liberty and autonomy articulated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The designated facilities have failed to establish adequate processes for ensuring that prescribed forms are completed as part of the involuntary admissions process.
The Ministry of Health and the health authorities acted unreasonably in failing to adequately monitor, audit and address designated facilities’ compliance with the involuntary admissions procedures under the Mental Health Act.
The Ministry of Health’s failure to make publicly available statistical and evaluative information about the extent to which designated facilities are complying with the procedural safeguards in relation to involuntary admissions and detentions under the Mental Health Act is unreasonable because it lacks the transparency required when the state is exercising extraordinary power over a vulnerable population.
The failure of the designated facilities to appropriately track, file and store the forms of patients who are involuntarily admitted under the Mental Health Act is unreasonable because the forms constitute the legal authority to detain and treat the patients
Hi Me,
I’m sorry if you had a negative experience in being treated without consent. I’m aware that is entirely possible. I’m also aware it’s entirely possible that treatment without consent saves lives. People who post here talk about how treatment without consent was the thing that saved them physically and allowed them to turn their lives around and build them into something they wanted as opposed to whatever the illness was doing to them.
I don’t see any citation on this fact: “In Ontario more than 3/4 of psychiatric patients we’re involuntarily committed!!!” Are you sure that’s accurate?
As for the rest, what you’re saying is that the system isn’t perfect. It needs improvement. I don’t disagree with you there. These things always need improvement.
Please understand, I know that treatment without consent is a bad option — it also happens to be the best one we have in many bad situations.
– Natasha Tracy
Found this extremely beneficial, thanks for the great write up, keep up the great work your doing.
I’ve been traced from a suicide hotline- twice – and resulted in hospitalization that I desperately needed. Saving lives is very important!
Hi Deb,
Thank you for sharing that. I know there are many people like you who have also had that experience.
– Natasha Tracy
You being even tangentially on their radar means you’re doing something right. Keep fighting the good fight!