Herewith latest sitrep for my reader - so far after almost 10 years 'blogging' I've had very few acknowledgements from readers - hence: me fein, mesel may be the only current reader.
Since August 2023 last, I've made miniscule authorial progress. Wiley (publishers) indicated that I could send them a pdf of my manuscript. It's a word doc and I'm uncertain about all that conversion palaver to/from word/pdf and back again. London publishers Price asked me to sent the complete manuscript. I'm pondering that.
More recently, via the good offices in 2015 of Fr Brendan SJ I've been in exploratory communication with a potential editor in Ireland. We may/not make progress tho the distance factor from Beal Feirste to the West means Zoom/WhatsApp may be yer only man. Neither appeals to me but perhaps needs must - we'll see. What I lack is someone to bounce my thoughts/views on. The solitariness of the long-distance wannabe published author sends shivers down my intellectual spine.
Today I discovered that a London socialist bookshop has a publishing arm. I may contact their guy, Colm, tho my manuscript is far from a political manifesto. Suicide - like the police, poverty and war - is a universal phenomenon that reaches well beyond humanity's hydra-headed complex of social systems, none of which, so far, have 'solved suicide's riddle'.
In my manuscript, I attempt to differentiate between the study of suicide, per se, and the practice of suicide prevention. I do not have any issue with the latter, just as I fully accept the activities of humanity's efforts to reduce road traffic injuries/deaths and/or aeroplane crashes, and to prevent potentially lethal cardiac conditions (e.g. arrhythmia) and the like. But I would argue - indeed insist - that the study of intentional human self-destruction, i.e. suicide, must be an essential prerequisite for humanity's activities to prevent, or to reduce, or to eliminate suicide.
This position is in line with the thinking of Thomas Szasz but may conflict with the often-stated view of Edwin Shneidman. Neither of these polymaths offered anything like a panacea for suicide's destructive behaviour. Each attempted to understand it: Szasz, a libertarian, was close to believing that suicide was a human right. Shneidman, a humanitarian, held that we, fellow humans, had a duty to save each life, including that of any person at serious risk of killing tbemselves.
In the end, it was found that Szasz had taken his own life, aged 92 and seriously disabled:
"Thomas Szasz ended his own life on September 8, 2012. He had previously suffered a fall and would have had to live in chronic pain otherwise. Szasz argued for the right to suicide in his writings" (Wikipedia, 19 Sept 2023).
Shneidman died aged 91 of natural causes:
"A few months before his death, Edwin Shneidman reflected on the “great urge to somehow live on” that he recognised in himself. Then he said: “There's no spirit or soul. I will be dead. Get that through your thick head, I'll be dead. And I ‘live’ in my children, in my DNA, in my books, in my reputation.” Shneidman's writings and influence will certainly survive him, his colleagues say" (Harding, 2009).
Currently awaiting my potential editor's response to the chapter on the culture of suicide, a local phenomenon, that I sent him a while back.
        

A further six months on, little interest by any of those I've approached re manuscript/book. Still while there's life (and time) there's hope that somebody - besides myself and my supervisor - who felt that there was/is something herein worth reading and considering.

Last week I succeeded in getting printed a ring-bound, double-sided copy of all 377 sides / 18 chapters. Only £25 plus a tourist trip into the West (of Beal Feirste). 

Just now I'm waiting for an English writer on suicide with a counselling background to get back to me.

Also a local 'community worker' who's seems quite task heavy / time light to read the Book Proposal. Shades of the Buddha wisdom re our human activities "We think we have time'.

I'll leave it there for now. 
  

Last September I was stalled (stopped) by concerns - real or imaginary - about potential defamation/copyright issues re manuscript after London firm (N) accepted my manuscript (rather too readily and without comment, which was a bit odd). THey also required 100% indemnity re contents before proceeding! Since then no change. I chose to go no further with "the London publisher" since it left me at potential risk. Could be most publishers will seek a similar waiver before going ahead. We'll see. My superviser MT suffered a bereavement in December '22 and I've not made contact since. I contacted LM, a published author, but a vicious illness (chest infection mid-December/mid-January '23) immobilised me and paused progress on that. Was rejected by Belfast publisher (B-H): '. . . the submitted material was narrowly focused on an academic discussion of disciplinary boundaries , , , this would not appeal to a general audience . . .' Also they said my manuscript was 'unsuitable' because it didn't address Ireland (their 'brand') sufficiently. They only sampled a cupla chapters. If they'd read more, they'd have seen that its locus was largely suicide in N Ireland with RoI/GB references too but clearly insufficient for them. Fair enough. Also rejected by another NI publisher rather curtly - my manusctipt sample did not match their brand. Fair enough. Made contact with a Belfast guy JOR whose expertise seemed to be as proof-reader - his estimate for my 377 page / 143,000 word manuscript was in five figures. I bid him an Aussi g'dy. I must try to ensure that any publisher (or editor, proof-reader etc) is as interested in and committed to the resolution of suicide's enigma as I am and have been this past three decades.
Bit of a brainwave during January 23! Found an outfit (H-G) whose major interest (among others) was suicide prevention. Contacted them re their journal (I'm a subscriber for a wheen of years) and mentioned my manuscript. Long story short, they expressed interest. I prepared a 'book proposal' (several weeks work) under their guidance. Sent it off this week, late March '23. Fingers crossed. More follows.

I just accidentally deleted my initial thoughts. So here goes again. I discussed this key issue with my supervisor yesterday. She is one of only three readers of the entire manuscript's 373 A4 size pages. The others are a London publisher's editor and me fein. A cupla others have read a chapter or two. Only one glaring error was pointed out to me so far and I immediately recast the relevant sentence. What has brought all of this to the forefront of my mind is a reference in a publisher's terms & conditions that would require me ("the author") to indemnify the publisher regarding "any and all" actions and claims in libel and/or defamation (L&D) against them regarding any of the manuscript's published contents. It would have been far from my mind in researching and composing the manuscript that I would have libelled or defamed anyone or any organision. But my intentions would count for nought in any such legal actions. There would be an onus on me to disprove any related allegation against me by a claimant. So, before instructing a publisher - and forwarding a substantial sum to them in the region of £5,000 - I must construct a resilient, defensive rampart against any claims. Three options exist.

First, I can invite a Belfast lawyer, expert in the L&D field to advise me. This could involve a four figure fee. Next, I could rely upon the publisher's editors to alert me to any obvious risks in advance of publication. Their documentation does not appear to offer this friendly service. Finally - and this option seems to me to be the best, perhaps the only practical and economical one - I can, starting today, review, and recast as necessary, the complete manuscript in order to gain as much confidence as I can, that the manuscript's publication will not land me in Belfast's Royal Courts of Justice at risk of serious financial outlays. I'm presently in my 82nd year and hope to leave my son a few shillings 'when I shuffle off this mortal coil'. Best to minimise any expenditure beyond the publisher's £5k, some of which might be recoverable if the manuscript's transition into a paperback on a shelf in Waterstone's or No Alibis, generates any 'royalties'. A hopeful note on which to end the epistle. More anon.              

I am awaiting feedback from a tentative London 'publisher of new authors' on my 373 page draft manuscript - "Death by suicide etc." following its dispatch by email to them on 12 August 2022, just over a cupla weeks ago. I lately (viz. ten days ago) found an article ["How to avoid Libel and Defamation as an Author" by Orna Ross, from selfpublishingadvice.org] about that L & D subject. Potential liability in L & D exists in any published written material, including websites, blogs, articles, pamphlets and books, where a person or organisation alleges they were wronged.

A person / organisation is libelled if a publication:
i) discredits them in their trade, business, or profession;
ii) exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
iii) causes them to be shunned or avoided; and / or
iv) lowers them in the eyes of society.
(Ross, 2021)

The test of libel in a court is "what a reasonable reader is likely to take as [the] natural or ordinary meaning of the published content in their full context". What the writer intended, as author or publisher, is irrelevant.

Thing is my take on suicide challenges some conventional views, opinions, statements, claims and assertions. Each of these position statements may be capable of being attributed to, or stated or repeated by a person or organisation. And therein lies the rub - check Hamlet's soliloquy. If any content is found (by a publisher or later by a reader) that allegedly libels or defames a person or organisation, then the author loses [unless he proves otherwise] and will be liable to pay them damages/costs as determined by the court. Lesson: avoid at all costs. This story will run for a while. More later.

Managed to open these 'blog' pages - not without 'usual' (?) issues with Dr Google's pedantic mania for exactitude. What did not surprise me though was a PA media article in today's online Guardian focusing upon funding resource issues allegedly linked to missed follow-up psychiatry appointments by patients on release from hospital. Just to ensure that an alleged cause/effect notion was not missed by readers, a following sentence in the article, albeit indirectly, linked suicide incidence to this 'missed appointments' resource issue:
 "The latest data from the Office for National Statistics said 4,912 suicides were registered in 2020 in England, with the male suicide rate at 15.3 per 100,000 and the rate among women at 4.9."
What's missing of course is any mention of the significant tranche of suicide deceased in GB/Ireland, who were unknown to either GP or any healthcare resource, before their death by suicide. O'Connor et al. (1999) confirmed that of 142 suicides in Greater Belfast in 1993/94, 64 (45.1%) had almost negligible contact with healthcare in the year before their death. Less than 5% had contacted their GP, or had any psychiatric history, or had been hospitalised. They were likely to have died as a result of their first suicide attempt, almost 50% were living alone at that time and over half (53.1%) were in employment. I'm not aware of any more recent published study based upon coroner's office files although Black (2021) estimated that "around 70% of people who die by suicide in Northern Ireland are not known to mental health services."
Clearly, additional psychiatric resources would be unlikely to impinge upon the fate of that significant, but unrecognised, 'at risk' constituency. Whether they could reduce suicide's attrition of recently discharged psychiatric patients is not addressed in the Guardian piece, although the Royal College of Psychiatrists does suggest therein that 'proper follow-up care [may] prevent suicides'.
My own work has convinced me of Durkheim's (1897/2002) view that suicide is a political issue - he referred to his research as a 'study in sociology' - that will not be effectively addressed other than by determined political policies, strategies and resources underpinned by a comprehensive understanding of human suicidal behaviour in all of its complexity and brutality.      
I recently joined up online with a US initiative - called iCause or PAUSE - whose mission is summarised here:
"ICAUSE (International Coalition for Addressing & Understanding Suicide Experiences) is: a global collective, grounded in compassion, social & economic justice, and health equity for all, valuing lived experiences with suicide; with the purpose of reducing the suffering associated with suicide and reducing suicide death rates through community engagement, support, education, advocacy, and research that informs clinical & non-clinical practices. ~ 2021.12.03".
Whether this outfit will grasp the nettle of reform by engaging effectively and forcefully with the dominant dual hegemony of psychiatry and psychopharmacology, remains to be seen. For sure their reference to 'social and economic justice' as a key component of suicidology seems to point in that direction.      

Looks like I've been away 'behind a mask' for over two years. During thar time I've completed a draft manuscript entitled 'Death by Suicide: Facts, myths and fallacies'. 18 chapters/sections in 373 A4 pages. Currently for 'consideration' by a London publisher - uncertain what happens next. More follows.

Some time after completion - 19+ years - my research MSc (2001) was successfully uploaded to this site in June 2020 by my friend Conlagh Finnegan. The delay was due to my problems in saving 288 A4 pages to a pdf file (eventually achieved in Jan 2018) - nowadays university dissertations are presented by students - as was my PhD dissertation - in the form both of hard copy pages AND as a pdf file on a CD.   

This study was completed as part of my educational qualification as a psychotherapist/counsellor at Ulster University, N Ireland.

The study's findings - in my humble opinion - are as valid today as in 2001. This year, the year of Covid-19 in UK/Ireland, suicide has not yet been publicly identified as a distinct category in the human catastrophe hidden under the bureaucratic term - excess deaths: that is those deaths not yet identified on death certificates as directly or indirectly related to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Those innocent family members, GPs, friends, colleagues and neighbours inter alia of the suicide deceased are too often regarded by the rest of us as "collateral damage" and left to grieve alone. It remains my hope that 'the rest of us' can perhaps turn towards the bereaved - rather than away from them - and so to offer by our presence if little else, our condolences and our practical help, support and perhaps even a smidgen of empathy. 14 June 2020   

After Mass a cupla weeks ago I joined other parishioners in the Hall for tea. Some items were being sold for the Missions. I bought a wee book about diabetes for a few quid. I'm on my own since 1989 - after 19 years with my partner - so I like now & again to have a word or two in a 'safe space' with other folks. What happened shortly after I collected a cup of tea and joined two ladies at a wee table took my breath away, left me shocked and saddened, and to a degree quite angry within myself. Neither lady knew me by name nor I them. So we introduced ourselves. The inevitable 'And what do you do, Philip?' friendly enquiry was raised after the ladies briefly explained their raison d'etre that day. Since I quit college/univ teaching 5 years ago, having 'escaped' in 1998 from my major pension-building 'career', and thereafter engaged in counselling/psychotherapy/suicidology via research & private practice, I'm inclined to say: 'I'm a therapist these days'. Unsurprisingly, on that day, the ladies wondered - as is sometimes the case - what sort of therapy. In no time at all, mention of my two suicide research projects (2001 & 2010) in our local univ's school of psychology led to the disclosure by the ladies of the particular circumstances a 12 year old schoolgirl's sudden death some days earlier. Sometime later I found a brief report on page 2 of a local morning paper (Irish News 21 May 2019) headlined 'Tributes paid to schoolgirl (12)'. The news report said the poor kid had 'died suddenly over the weekend'. The above mentioned ladies knew little more than the press reporter but the scant information known or rumoured about the tragedy led us, that Sunday morning, to lament somewhat inconclusively our northern Irish 'suicide epidemic'. I'll write more about all of this soon. It's particularly galling that despite the extensive local, and massive global research bank of relevant data, research, professional insights like Joiner's much admired 'Why People Die by Suicide' (2005), and more theories about suicide than you could shake a stick at, we're still unable to do much about  the brutal cruelty implicit in human self-slaughter. I join with others in offering most sincere condolences to all this wee girl's family, friends, school chums, teachers, and neighbours regarding their incalculable loss.              

A recent 'Guardian' article by Steven Morris was head-lined "Judges lower benchmark for inquest decisions on suicide" (11 May 2019). The gist of their lordships' decision in an English/UK Appeal Court (10 May 2019) was to change the evidential standard for coroners and juries to be 'sure that someone has taken their life' from 'criminal' - i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt, to 'civil' - i.e. 'more probable than not'. Morris's article says this landmark ruling is likely to cause controversy and deep upset among those 'for whom suicide carries a deep stigma'. The case being appealed related to the death of the late James Maughan, found hanged in an Oxfordshire  prison cell. At Maughan's inquest (Morris reports), the coroner Darren Salter advised jurors that although there was 'not enough evidence to be sure he had intended to kill himself', they could conclude that on the balance of probabilities the deceased had taken his own life. Later, in the English/UK High Court, his family disputed the coroner's decision to advise a 'suicide verdict' rather than an available alternative 'open verdict'. That court ruled, Morris says, 'unexpectedly' that the standard of proof for suicide should be the balance of probabilities. The Appeal Court backed their High Court colleagues. Nearly three weeks later I've no information that the English/UK Supreme Court (or dare I say pre-Brexit European Court/s) are, or will become, involved.

A few days before this on 8 May 2019, the Guardian published a Press Association (PA) report headed "Keith Flint: not enough evidence for suicide verdict". In this case the deceased was a 'celebrity' singer found hanged, having consumed cocaine, alcohol and codeine. The senior coroner for Essex (England) Caroline Beasley-Murray recorded an open verdict. She was reported by PA to have concluded as follows: "I've considered suicide. To record that I would have had to have found that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Flint formed the idea and took deliberate action knowing it would result in his death. Having regard to all the circumstances, I don't find there is enough evidence for that." Beasley-Murray also ruled out death by accident where Mr Flint 'may have been been larking around and it all went horribly wrong'. She further commented (PA reported): 'We will never quite know what was going on in his mind on that date and so that's why I am going to record an open conclusion'. PA reports that police found 'no suspicious circumstances', nor any third party involvement. The late Mr Flint's family did not attend the inquest and no witnesses were called to give evidence in person. I have no access to any written evidence available to the coroner. Other than postmortem evidence, no mention was made of a psychological autopsy being carried out, although such investigations are believed, rightly or wrongly, to be  standard procedure before any inquest takes place into a death where suicide is considered a possibility.

I have been pondering the meanings implicit in the word 'intention' with regard to both of the above mentioned unfortunate deaths of Mr Maughan and Mr Flint. This takes us to 'motivation' which clearly precedes 'intention'. What motivates, i.e. drives or energises an intended, i.e. planned action? In neither of the above reported fatal cases, was that key question posed, considered or answered. If either of these men were suspected of being murdered, i.e. evidence existed of third party involvement, the suspected but unknown killers' motivation would be a vital area of interest for the criminal justice process. But context is everything. Suicide is not understood to be self-murder despite the near equivalence of meaning of each term. Murders are never over for those bereaved by such a horror, even when the culprit killer/s is identified, prosecuted and incarcerated. Similarly, survivors of bereavement by suicide are 'changed, changed utterly' and crushingly, by sudden, serious, unanticipated, total loss. Yet the resources deployed in investigating suicide are minuscule, while unlimited criminal justice energy and expertise is available in relation to murder.