Statistics are cold-hearted methods to gauge the “success” of suicide prevention strategies, yet they are the only tool available to measure the number of Australians who take their lives each year.

A total of 3214 Australians died by suicide in 2023, an increase from 2021, when 3166 people died in this manner. Over the past decade, the age-standardised rates have not fallen significantly.

Black Dog Institute reports that an estimated 65,000 Australians attempt suicide every year, with it being the leading cause of death for Australians between aged 15 to 44.

Suicide Prevention Australia, the leading agency tasked with preventing Australians from self-death, said this on the rise in numbers: “It’s disappointing that suicide deaths in Australia are still higher than they were 15 years ago and still the leading cause of death in younger Australians.”

Unlike many other countries, suicide prevention in Australia relies on a paradoxical approach that prevents the media from openly discussing suicide.

Without question, the Australian media blindly follow guidelines by the government funded Mindframe.

Mindframe maintains the taboo on self-death: a well-known person dies, despite widespread national media coverage of their “sudden death” or “no suspicious circumstances” , we don’t know how they died, the circumstances, location, method or the reasons.

Lifeline and BeyondBlue numbers are displayed, with readers advised to contact a helpline if this story causes distress. We don’t know what the distress may be, as the word “suicide” is never used.

Suicide is taboo. It’s shut away in a sealed box. Media are advised against mentioning the word, but if we are distressed by this allusion, we can reach out for help.

Few are willing to challenge the status quo and call for independent evaluation of restrictive media guidelines as a suicide prevention program.

Suicide prevention has become an industry, and challenging the “preventionist” model carries reputational risks.

The sacred cow of the suicide prevention sector is Mindframe, a government initiative aimed at encouraging “responsible, accurate and sensitive representation of mental illness and suicide in the Australian mass media”.

Mindframe recommends that to minimise risk, media reporting should “not glamourise suicide or provide specific details about the method or location of death”.

The media adhere to the Mindframe dictate on suicide, unquestioningly agreeing that inappropriate coverage encourages copycat and cluster suicides.

Contrariness best describes Mindframe media guidelines. Research studies purportedly reveal a direct connection between certain types of reportage on suicide and the likelihood of an increase among vulnerable individuals.

The word “vulnerable” is theirs; it is found throughout media guidelines on “responsible” reporting of suicide.

The media have been warned: explicit reporting of method, prominence of coverage, sensational coverage that “glamourises” suicide, and even the duration of a suicide report, can increase the possibility of suicide contagion or “copycat” suicides.

The copycat claims are contestable; yet they remain unchallenged by media outlets unwilling to analyse the evidence of suicide prevention policies effectiveness.

No such guidelines apply to the reporting of how other people die.

Human beings are capable of the vilest atrocities on each other and on themselves. Terrorism, genocide, war, mass murder, torture, assaults, rape, and famines are daily news events graphically reported on.

Yet what we do to ourselves — suicide and self-harm — must be ring-fenced; these human activities are shielded and palliated in mainstream media discourse.

The media use terms such as “unspeakable crimes” or “indescribable horror”, or simply “inhumane” when referring to human activities deemed beyond comprehension. These are actions we as a species commit. They are “human” in every respect and they should be spoken about, described and understood.

As far as is known, humans are the only animal species with a conscience. We are capable of recognising cause and effect. Therefore, we can — and must — be able to analyse our own behaviour, especially when our human actions are premeditated, devised and carried out in logical and bureaucratic ways.

Illogically, we are reluctant to confront actions against the self, specifically self-death and self-harm.

If depicting, even sensationalising suicide, can “inspire” copycat action, do we accept the concept that other -cides produce similar potential outcomes?

There is no evidence that reporting on homicide, infanticide, familicide, fratricide, filicide, mariticide, parricide, siblicide, democide, femicide, feticide or genocide have a uniquely different cause-and-effect on “vulnerable people” than reporting on suicide.

Mindframe warnings about “contagion” and “copycat” consequences are linked to reporting details about method, time, place or other aspects of suicide. This suggests that would-be “suicides” are incapable of thinking out the idea for themselves (or using an internet search engine) if not alerted by a report in the media.

There are no helplines for viewers of media coverage of murders, massacres and genocide.

Those affected by the graphic images of death in the Middle East are not advised to call a helpline. Vietnamese Australians are not advised who to call should they experience distress, mental illness or suicidal thoughts when gung-ho, partisan and often racist Vietnam War movies are broadcast depicting their kin massacred in graphic detail.

Mindframe conceives of suicide as a modern phenomenon, spurred by media coverage, online news and social media.

With harm against others, the position appears to be that people have become desensitised to atrocities and horror; they will calmly eat dinner watching TV footage of war atrocities and school mass shootings.

Suicide is not an aberration that media coverage must be curtailed to prevent an outbreak of self-killing. Suicide has existed since recorded human history, from the Bible onwards.

Suicide exists in every country, race, religion, ethnicity, gender and culture. No country, region or defined group of humans has ever “prevented” suicide.

These different approaches to harm against the self and harm against others cannot account for why Australia, with strict media guidelines on suicide reporting, has higher suicide rates than countries without these guidelines.

To date, no analysis or evaluation of Mindframe’s media restrictions has been undertaken.

What would happen if we talked about suicide?

What would happen if, as with domestic violence and the murder of women in Australia, the media reported every detail – how a life ended, the circumstances, location, method and what interventions may have been effective?

Illogically, we are not reporting on ourselves. We have allowed a most human action, the act of self-death, to be hidden, sealed from open discourse.

Perhaps part of the reason suicide rates in Australia remain so high is that we won’t talk about it.

If readers find this article triggering please contact  Beyond Blue or  Lifeline Australia.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.