People in the suicide prevention field discourage the use of the term “committed suicide.” The verb “commit” (when followed by an act) is generally reserved for actions that many people view as sinful or immoral. Someone commits burglary, or murder, or rape, or perjury, or adultery, or crime – or something else bad.
Suicide itself might be bad, yes, but the person who dies by suicide is not committing a crime or sin. Rather, the act of suicide almost always is the product of mental illness, intolerable stress, pain, or trauma.
To portray suicide as a crime or sin stigmatizes those who experience suicidal thoughts or attempt suicide. This stigma, in turn, can deter people from seeking help from friends, family, and professionals.
As Susan Beaton and colleagues note in their article, “Suicide and Language: Why We Shouldn’t Use the ‘C’ Word”:
“Suicide is not a sin and is no longer a crime, so we should stop saying that people ‘commit’ suicide. We now live in a time when we seek to understand people who experience suicidal ideation, behaviours and attempts, and to treat them with compassion rather than condemn them.”
“Completed Suicide” vs. “Died by Suicide”
Warning: I am a word geek. I love language, and I also love discussing its intricacies. Some will deride this discussion of suicide terminology as political correctness gone awry. But language has power. If changing our language can help suicidal people to feel safer asking for help, then changing language can save lives.
With that said, I prefer the term “died by suicide” because it avoids the judgmental connotations of “committed suicide.”
Some people advocate for using the term “completed suicide” instead. I urge people not to use the term “completed” suicide. I explained my objections to the term in this post, and they bear repeating.
What’s Wrong with the Term “Completed Suicide”
Think of the sense of accomplishment you feel when you complete a big project. Then think of the disappointment you feel when you don’t.
Completion is good. Dying prematurely is usually a tragedy.
To complete something conveys success; to leave something incomplete conveys failure. In fact, at universities, if a student receives an “incomplete” in a class and doesn’t complete their remaining requirements on time, the “I” converts to an “F.”
Some suicide prevention advocates use the term “completed suicide” because they view it as an acceptable alternative to “committed suicide.” Not all suicide prevention advocates agree, of course. The State of Maine’s Suicide Prevention Program, for example, states on its website, “Both terms (committed and completed) perpetuate the stigma associated with suicide and are strongly discouraged.”
The term “completed suicide” is especially popular among academics. A search on Google Scholar yields 470 articles where “completed suicide” is used in the title. Here are just a few examples:
- “Characteristics of Completed Suicides,” in the Psychiatric Times
- “Risk of Completed Suicide in 89,049 Young Males Assessed by a Mental Health Professional,” in European Neuropsychopharmacology
- “Suicidal Ideation and Subsequent Completed Suicide in Both Psychiatric and Non-Psychiatric Populations: A Meta-Analysis,” in Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
Those examples actually bring me to a different complaint about the term “completed suicide.” When “completed” is used as an adjective for suicide (instead of a verb), it is redundant.
Characteristics of completed suicides = characteristics of suicides.
Risk of completed suicide = risk of suicide.
Subsequent completed suicide = subsequent suicide.
Completed suicide is suicide. Why not just say “suicide,” then?
More about the Term “Died by Suicide”
The Associated Press dictates the standards for appropriate language in most mainstream newspapers and magazines (but not academic journals). The AP changed its style book recently to discourage the use of the phrase “committed suicide.” Instead, it recommends alternative terms like “killed himself,” “took her life,” and “died by suicide.”
I have no objections to any of these terms. As a direct substitute for “committed suicide,” I prefer “died by suicide.” I’ve heard only a couple complaints about this term, and none is that it perpetuates stigma against people who die by suicide, as the term “committed suicide” does, or that it portrays the act of suicide as an accomplishment, as the term “completed suicide” does.
The first complaint is that “died by suicide” is a little clunky. Usually, we say somebody died of something (like, “she died of cancer”) not by something. Suicide is different, I guess, because the term “died by her own hand” also is in the vernacular.
The second complaint I’ve heard from folks, especially my students, is that “died by suicide” is an unfamiliar term and hard to get used to using. It doesn’t roll off the tongue.
Over time, the more you substitute the term “died by suicide,” the more natural it becomes. Likewise, over time, the more you say “died by suicide,” the more the term “committed suicide” will hurt your ears.
And if you’re like me, “completed suicide” will hurt your ears even worse. So please, I urge you, say something else.
Copyright 2017 by Stacey Freedenthal, PhD, LCSW. Written for SpeakingOfSuicide. All Rights Reserved. Photos purchased from Fotolia.com.
Changing the word doesn’t change the act. The person killed themselves intentionally. It is not an accident. God gave us life and did not intend for humans to end it prematurely. How many lives have been saved by changing the wording. For some it is a selfish act. Those left behind are devastated. The tragedy is especially hard on their children. The words change nothing.
keep your religious fanaticism to yourself. not everyone believes in god and nor should they have to.
doctors do this all the time, curing disease, heart attacks…any intervention by a doctor in thwarting a natural act that could lead to death would be a act against gods will. if you profess to believe in the kind of God you are espousing. you can’t pick and choose….one can’t be acceptable where another is. it’s childish.
The article quotes:
“Suicide is not a sin and is no longer a crime, so we should stop saying that people ‘commit’ suicide. We now live in a time when we seek to understand people who experience suicidal ideation, behaviours and attempts, and to treat them with compassion rather than condemn them.”
I think it is more harmful to try to rebrand suicide as something that is not sinful. Who are they to say this is not a sin when it absolutely is, in the Bible. They brought religion into the topic on that note and it needs to be corrected. It is a crime against God, whether or not a government recognizes it as a crime.
Murder is taking an innocent life, whether it is yours or someone else’s. Just because it is an act committed due to mental illness does not make it acceptable, this is what the article implies. Assisted suicide is committed but people who have other reasons and is marketed as a empowered decision. So which is it?
To tell people that suicide is not a bad thing is only going to make it easier for those considering it to justify committing the act.
It is simple logic. Religious or not.
Is it possible for any god to exist, which is all-powerful and all-knowing before anything happens? If so and they decide to create anything which is perfect, they would know in advance, that they have the power to keep it perfect. They would know from the start, never to allow physical and emotional pain and “sin” would not exist.
I’ll start by saying that I am by no means an expert in suicide, and I’m all for doing whatever we can to reduce the stigma surrounding suicide. That said, I do have one issue with the phrase “died by suicide” which is that it removes the agency of the person who lost their life. It makes it sound as though suicide “just happened” to them and there was nothing they could have done about it.
I’ve never used notions of completed suicide or died of suicide, because both seem contrived or clumsy. For statistical and related purposes a simple heading of ‘Suicide’ is adequate. In conversations, I’m always likely to say “ended their own life”, not least because others are likely to be instantly concerned (rather than judgmental) and ask why, how, whether prior help was sought, ask about the affects on friends, relatives and so on. That allows for what Anon refers to as “agency” or self control. Incidentally, I notice that someone, possibly Stacey, refers to “Completion as good”. Most often it is but not in all contexts. Someone who sets out for revenge might complete their intended task but seriously harm others in the process. So, although “completed suicide” doesn’t inevitably mean ‘good’, it can sound contrived, obstruct instant clarity and make minds boggle.
As I was reading this article, I kept thinking I was sure I had read it before. I checked and only then noticed, (a) it may have been displayed for the first time in 2017 and (b) I previously made a few comments.
I’m sure language and related issues do need to keep being raised. However, it would be worth stating the reasons why former articles are being repeated, along with former comments.
Hi John,
Thanks for your comments, then and now! I don’t understand your request. With rare exceptions, posts and comments remain on my site once posted. So what you’re seeing is the same post you saw years ago — not repeated, but still here. 🙂
The starting point of any conversation regarding “words” is the word’s etymology.
“Suicide” is borne from Latin — “sui” related to one’s self; cide related to killer.
The word is related to homicide (homo being the root); matricide (matre being the root); fratricide; patricide; etc.
By this, in Latin, the prefix describes that upon which the killer (cide) acts — self (sui); homo (self or man); matri (mother); fratre (brother, e.g., fraternal); patri (father, e.g., paternal).
Thus, one cannot “complete” any one of these. Either he commits a “cide” or he attempts a “cide.”
A “suicide” is a death committed by a killer (cide) against himself (sui).
It can be revealing to check the etymology of words. However, meanings are not fixed in tablets of stone but if used as though they are, they do not have to be imposed in harmful ways.
An example of a word which has always annoyed me is homophobia, because the suffix means fear. I personally have a resistance to that relatively new change in meaning. I would prefer a suffix which means a failure to understand, hostility or hate which results in harm. An accurate suffix could help gain a more accurate understanding of what is happening and why.
Regarding the meaning of suicide, I’ve no issue with referring to those who are suicidal but will not use the moralising notion of committed in conjunction with it.
I’m sure to have mentioned previously, that persisting with a judgmental attitude can be very damaging in the short and long term, especially to young children whose parents have taken their own lives.
I’m also sure no reasonable person, would defend a rigid perspective on etymology and the use of words, which is likely to harm children in a way which is entirely avoidable. This is about psychology and values but what isn’t?
Interesting as the etymology may be, it is of no help to those who are in a suicidal frame of mind. Or to those of us who have endured the loss of loved ones due to suicide. In my own case that is my mother and two siblings.
As has already been argued it is the association with CRIME and SIN which is offensive and stigmatising, and hurtful and OUTDATED. Would you rather be right or kind is the real question here.
I have to agree with you Erin but who wouldn’t? However, I’m sure you will agree, that a person cannot be right if they are being unkind to those living with the consequences of bereavements, especially those which are traumatic. It cannot be ethical to knowingly use language, which can cause harm or make existing harm even worse. It may be that knowingly doing so in connection with bereavements, is a long established common law offence, which is punishable.
I am so so sorry for your loss and unimaginable pain.I have lost two loved ones to suicide and now have stopped sharing as to how they departed.I wish it were not so.To the Proffesionals In healthcare their immediate response has been, ” oh,you are now at riske” even more so.I continue to unravel at my agonizing pain and those words plunge me into further depression etc.I am ,have been for 30:yrs struggling with my own TRD; ” add I now,suicide loss,trauma ++.,and when seeking assistance those responses are further traumatizing for me.Suicide loss and feeling suicidal are often unmet needs which few Proff are skilled on.; (I was an Ed.Psych.myself prior).Words DO Matter very much.Suicide remains so stigmatized .I also react when I hear of efforts coining the term Suicide Prevention……as in ,how is that to be addresed ,if there are few resources available as needed ?? Pfeventt..How precisely ??There is a shortage of practitioners ,and then comes the Ins.issue…another roadblock.I will not get involved with find raising in those areas as I feel it is almost ” false advertising ” to raise funds,etc.Do you ever hear of monies being raised to PREVENT Cancer,Heart Disease,Addictions ?? One hears awareness ,education but not prevent …..Also the words mental illness have their own,stigmatization…why not utilize terms such as emotional health,emotional wealth,or emotional wellness.As former Proff,I will never offer again ,when asked,in an interview,etc.,Yes I struggle with depression,and yes ,I am mentally ill,or have mental illness,etc.Yes words do matter and perhaps we need to address the terminology currently used!!! The time is now and it is Urgent….and the recent newish terms ,of Behavioral Health are equally discriminating,and misleading….How often when we use the word Behavior in any context,is it viewed in a positive way…..Words Matter and only change can create change – It takes courage ,and positive publicity ,as I call it to embrace and support changes to continue to educate all in an area that still uses ” antiquated stigmatized language “….The TIME is now.
The author writes, “Completion is good, and suicide isn’t.” There’s a gaping problem here–and it’s one that spans nearly the entirety of Western “mental health” and far too much of psychology. That’s the articulation of personal values as if they were proven objective facts. Granted, the majority in Western health care share the opinion that death is bad. We do everything feasible, with financial constraints, to keep people alive as long as possible–regardless the quality of their lives as they themselves see it. It’s only lately that medicine is beginning to embrace the entitlement of a few patients to decide they don’t want to be kept alive anymore.
The author makes an argument based on her personal values as if these were universal and objective. They’re not. At best, they’re common–and polls in the US and Europe show this common sentiment rapidly declining. I don’t mean to insult the author or others who hold her opinion, but you cannot TELL people that what they feel or conclude (about the abstractions of their own lives) is either wrong or bad simply because other people feel differently about these things. While I’d agree the suffering leading some people to suicide is “bad,” no historic or modern scholar has ever shown there to be any such thing as objective bad or good, let alone answer the ancient question of life’s value or meaning. Absent proof to the contrary, an argument that feeling a certain way or deciding to do something with one’s own life is “bad” is unconvincing–especially to those who already feel that way or who want to do with their lives what they reason is best for them.
I’m not suggesting anyone [use verb of your choice here] suicide. And I’m sure the author means well. But suicide research and interventions aren’t likely to help those who most need help if these are couched in vague, moralistic language like “good” and “bad.” Especially if, as a robust body of research suggests, the environmental conditions leading people to suicide persist or worsen. While the common retort here is that many who were once suicidal express gratitude for having been found out and stopped, this still doesn’t address the fundamental question of what is “bad” about not being present to experience anything–including pain. And there are many statistical reasons drawing conclusions about most suicidals based on claims of suicide attempt survivors likely obscures the truth. Certainly, help people who ask for and want help. But please also entitle people who consistently express that they don’t find the help available in our culture helpful the liberties to decide what their own quality of life is and to make ultimate decisions for themselves. Best to all.
Although Stacey Freedenthal does say that suicide is “bad”, I very much doubt that she sees all suicides as being that simple. I’ve never yet heard of anyone referring to any suicide as “good” and I note that AB does not go that far.
I doubt that AB would consider it responsible and respectful, to stand back and leave young parents to needlessly end their own lives, leaving infants, young children and young adults to cope with what can be the devastating and medium or long terms impacts of traumatic bereavements.
Whatever modern philosophers or other scholars may have said about good, bad, the meaning we give to life or anything else, may not help with the need for down-to-earth decision making, the need to act sensitively, in good faith and so on.
In western societies, we have the legal right to refuse medical treatments, which could save our lives, whether we would continue living for short or long periods of time. Those decisions mean we opt to end our lives sooner rather than later. In that context we tend not to see “death as bad”. We see it as inevitable but still offering to prevent or minimise avoidable pain and distress. For some, euthanasia or lawfully sanctioned assisted suicide is increasingly seen as a option.
I have no hesitation in saying I base my actions on attempting to prevent and stop cruelty and other intense physical and/or emotional pain, social injustice and so on.
We all act according to “personal values” and shared principles in both paid and unpaid work. They are never fixed in stone and are continually evolving. What matters is to be open and honest about those, so we can point anyone to other sources of help, which are as close as possible to the way they make sense of their world, their beliefs, values and norms.
Regarding, “you cannot TELL people that what they feel or conclude … is either wrong or bad simply because other people feel differently about these things”, what matters is understanding how we have come to make sense of our experiences and having choices when we are desperate for help.
I agree with Zee that most people then need “help without being judged”. However, when EXCEPTIONALLY RARELY someone who is feeling suicidal is harming others, (e.g. through emotional, physical and/or sexual abuse), that has to be acknowledged, stopped and prevented. That can usually be achieved by exploring reasons for each specific behaviour, without condemning the perpetrator as being a “bad” person in every way. Hope and progress come out of building on everything which is good.
When “environmental conditions … persist or worsen” which can predictably result in suicides, those need to be tackled with urgency, especially when they are tangible and easy to identify and measure. I’m sure I’ve not read of anyone attempting to argue that those should be ignored or are irrelevant.
John,
Thanks for your supportive comments. You are correct, I don’t see all suicides as being so simple. I have modified my post a little to avoid the appearance of oversimplifying; I describe the changes in my comment above.
You raise many good points in your comment. Even if the person who dies by suicide sees their act as “good,” the person’s children, parents, friends, and other loved ones likely view the loss of the person they love as tragic, painful, and … well … bad. And the person who dies by suicide certainly wouldn’t see the circumstances that led up to their decision as good. If they were happy with their circumstances, they wouldn’t be ending their life!
AB,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. These are good points, and I’ve modified the post somewhat to allow for the complexities of the topic. Where I said “Completion is good, and suicide isn’t,” I wrote, “Completion is good. Dying prematurely is usually a tragedy.” (“Usually,” because even many people passionate about suicide prevention see the value of assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness.) And where I said “suicide is bad,” I changed it to “Suicide might be bad.”
I do think it’s not as simple as suicide being bad or good, but I also think we can all universally agree that thinking about suicide, attempting suicide, or dying by suicide doesn’t mean a person is bad or good. Hence, the need to change our language about suicide.
Time and again book titles continue to use labels such as “suicidal person” rather than focus on behavior “person who is suicidal” even from the very persons who educate the public on “language matters”… “Helping the Suicidal Person: Tips and Techniques for Professionals,”
Philosophia,
Good point. I’ve struggled with this issue of language. I think maybe it’s a matter of expediency vs. harm. The word “suicidal” isn’t ideal, because it’s not person-first language. But it’s also so clunky to say “Helping the Person who Thinks about or Attempts Suicide.” I have a new book under contract and I expect to avoid the term “suicidal person” in the title.