Posted by Mary_Bowers on October 22, 2004, at 19:42:50
In reply to Re: Suicidal ideation » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 22, 2004, at 16:08:59
The difference between sites that allow messages about suicidal ideation and those that don't might be that those that don't allow it are covered by insurance policies. Insurers help the insured understand liabilities. Few people are likely to claim a tort for not being allowed to discuss suicidal ideation.
If it is neccessary to warn people that reading a post might lead to their self-inflicted death, is it not reasonable to conclude there might be a better, less public venue for that sort of conversation?
Is it fair for a site to rely on Internet Service Providers and local police to sort out the risk of suicide among people encouraged to discuss it on line, or would it be more productive in a virtual large group to invite discussion of issues related to sustaining life and direct those with suicidal ideation to venues better able to provide critical care?
Is the self-described benefit to a few people of being allowed to discuss suicidal ideation greater than the associtated risk recognized among the vast majority of administrators at similar self-help groups?
poster:Mary_Bowers
thread:405966
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/406147.html