Talk:Suicide intervention

NPOV

The whole article appears to be very POV. Although it does document one particular view of suicide - the medical one - wikipedia shouldn't appear to endorse that view. The article needs more qualifiers in the text to emphasise that much of what is presented only represents one opinion.212.159.115.35 12:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that only discussing one side of an issue is POV in itself as long as the article title makes it clear that this is a POV and not 'the Truth' and ideally I agree that a 'controversies' or 'criticism' section would be helpful. An example is the article on Intelligent Design. Clearly it must focus on describing a minority POV. Antonrojo 03:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Antonrojo. The topic is specifically the medical POV. Other POV can be and are discussed in other articles. Aleta 08:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Aleta

Reality check

"If depression is a major factor, then treatment usually leads to the disappearance of suicidal thoughts." IF the treatment is actually successful, which it frequently isn't, even though the medical community might perhaps like people to think it is. If it were that simple there would be far fewer cases of recurring suicide attempts made by people in psychiatric treatment. Akseli 10:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Right to die

I removed this paragraph from the article:

Critics of mainstream views about mental health and some advocates of the right to die argue that, far from being a sign of poor mental health, considering or intending to commit suicide can be a rational choice, and that it is the right of individuals to decide for themselves whether to continue living.

This article is specifically for the medical POV. Right to die advocacy should be taken elsewhere (like the right to die article). MoodyGroove 22:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Is it not a relevant point? It certainly relates to the idea of suicide, and so I think a paragraph should make mention of this existing point of view, even in a small way, with a link to the full article on the right to die. — metaprimer (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Suicide prevention article mentions this same idea, and is related to intervention. I think even having a link to the right to die article in "See also" would be beneficial. — metaprimer (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Medical Views

Is there going to be a full medical views article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Catch-22

The article makes mention of there being a Catch-22 situation in the United States, however it's not a true Catch-22 situation. Yes, people who express the intent to harm themselves are deemed unfit to refuse treatment, but if it were a Catch-22 situation, the same would also be true for those who don't express the intent to harm themselves. I'm removing it on this basis. — metaprimer (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations?

Just in case, before they get lost some DOI's might be useful as inline citations:[1] Biosthmors (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 15:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)