I probably have an unpopular opinion on this, but I feel that people who wish to commit suicide should not be prevented from doing so. By all means, if someone wants to get help or needs counseling they should be able to get it. But if in the end their choice is suicide, we should be making it easier for them, not harder. I think that if I ever wanted to commit suicide I would be less likely to seek counseling out of fear I would be "prevented" from making my own choices. Similarly, when an animal is critically injured we "put them out of their misery" because that's the "humane" thing to do. But us humans, we have to suffer to the very end. Why?
I think you're confusing or equalizing suicide with euthanasia; the former is, in this case, a mental issue triggered by chemical inbalances (which in turn are often due to external causes), and as the people that have been through depression can attest to, a temporary one. Suicide in that case can be listed as a temporary lapse in judgment.
Euthanasia, on the other hand, is a conscious choice, often by the terminally ill and the suffering with no chance of recovery. Chronic physical pain and such, often to a point where the person is no longer able to commit suicide.
I loathe your condescension. If someone wants to die and they still want to die a month later, let them. By what right do we force those who want to die to suffer a little longer? If it's their life why can't they end it if they will?
You know what's not a terminal illness that is bad enough that many with it would welcome death? Schizophrenia. For some the medicine works, the side effects are acceptable, they can lead a normal life. But there are plenty who can't. You know what else isn't a terminal illness that would make you long for oblivion? Surviving when the rest of your family didn't, surviving when the accident was your fault.
And you know what, if you think your life isn't worth living and you want out, you are suffering.
I've been depressed, I've been very depressed indeed and I'm glad to have seen the back of it but there are plenty who spend years and decades there and if they want out they should be let go, not locked up "for their own safety"
I'm not sure I saw the same condescension you did. I think the parent were simply pointing out that not everyone who wants to kill themselves is the same. Some people who want to kill themselves actually have solutions available to them that will make them not only not want to kill themselves, but also live fulfilling and enjoyable lives.
The grandparent was saying it should be easier for people to kill themselves, and I think the parent was trying to point out that this isn't a perfect solution since there are so many who think that suicide is their only option but there are really other options.
You assume 100% self ownership of one's life, which I find silly. Society makes large investments in individuals and typically they have long term duties that cannot rightfully be abandoned.
We don't have a choice in being born, and we don't have a choice in dying either. This very thought alone can make quite a lot of people want to kill themselves.
The fact that society loses money and investment when a person dies is not the responsibility of the person. Society works the way it does without asking us for a say in it. Its been this way since ages, and will continue for ages. I as an individual cannot do anything to make society see me as non-existent. Or if I do, then this should be laid out as a series of steps. In this article, its mentioned the medical area loses $1 million per suicide, as if when I am in a state to kill myself I should feel guilty that I am 'owned' by society and by killing myself i will be 'stealing' from it. Pathetic.
On the contrary, I think people are most often suicidal because they fail to perceive their role in society as meaningful. To the extent this happens it is because of deep-seated problems in modern industrialism c.f. Ted Kaczynski. The cracks are just far too large in modern economic systems. Public social welfare programs play a large role in disconnecting people from their kin and neighbors; it becomes easy to feel irrelevant in supporting others.
The failures of modern industrial capitalism and social programs don't change the the underlying reality of suicide, however. It is a form of desertion, or dereliction of duty. This is more apparent in smaller scale societies.
Well in America anyway, the dominant culture is of an independent right to choose your own way. Especially in the arena of personal health and welfare.
I logged in just to downvote you as, extremely unfortunately, you are the top comment on this thread at the present moment. I don't think, for most cases in which it is not terminal, that you can say it's a case of physical suffering.
As someone has pointed out in another comment, a huge number of suicides come not from people who are terminally ill but from people who are just depressed. In those cases nothing you say in your comment actually applies. Those people are not "critically injured" they are just depressed, frequently they go on to live full and meaningful lives if they seek help.
You need to educate yourself with the science of choice and what happens during depression that changes your ability to make right decisions. Assuming that a depressed person is able to make the right decision is just wrong. How many times did you decide on something and than changed your mind? only this one is irreversible. Depression is curable with right support and medication. There may be few who are hopeless cases but 40000 is a big number and I believe its preventable for good.
Were you previously depressed yourself or are you just trotting out the party line?
I have been depressed before.
While it's true that some people can take medication and receive platitudes and coping methods on how to deal with the facts of a sad and sorry life, this won't "cure" everybody.
What about those people that suffer for 10+ years?
---
In regards to the typical statements that depressed people have to hear day-upon-day:
When I was depressed (and I was very depressed for around 5 years) I knew that based on what I saw around me, I could probably expect to stop becoming depressed at some point of my life. However, it greatly annoyed me when people said "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem" because when you've felt particularly bad for years and years, you're not dealing with something which is so easy to change, and it's in fact far more permanent than many things in your life. Time stretches without pleasure. Days are long but years are unimaginably scary.
Another statement which I would hear a lot was the idea that you shouldn't kill yourself because your family, friends and community need you. It doesn't necessarily sounds nice to a depressed person. Here's how I used to rationalise it: I was committing a selfless act of martyrdom by continuing to exist without pleasure - every day I would be nailed to a cross and for their pleasure would hang there on a side of a hill they didn't care to visit. "What did they get out of my suffering?!"
Similar story. In college I knew someone suffering from bipolar disorder. There's a lyric from Andrea Gibson's "Nutritionist"—"Some people will never understand the kind of superpower it takes for some people to just walk outside." Every day for her for months at a time was just agonizingly painful for her to get through, beyond my abilities to accurately describe in a quick comment on the internet.
The vast majority of the anti-suicide efforts were just—insulting in her case, in a lot of ways. There were a lot of people and organizations telling her very loudly not to kill herself, and that it would get better if she just stuck it out a little more and saw a therapist. There was a legal and medical system willing to lock her up, for a fee, and keep her from actually physically harming herself. (This terrified her. She said her stay in a mental institution had been horrific and entirely unhelpful—they basically put her in solitary and kept her from doing anything at all, for hours. They wouldn't even let her have a pen and paper to write with because they were concerned that she would use it for self-harm.)
But there was nobody actually providing a way to make her life less painful. She came from a wealthy background and had good health insurance, so could afford weekly therapy sessions and psych meds. Some of the pills would work, for a few months or weeks at a time, but none of them were permanently helpful—and most of them took weeks to titrate up to an effective dose, so with each switch there would be a huge gap of time where she was as bad off as ever and nobody knew if the next pill would even work.
The anti-suicide efforts were like—it was like she was burning alive, and there were all these organizations and people in place determined to keep her from shooting herself to end the pain. But there was nobody who could actually stop her from burning.
I don't know. It's an awful situation all around. There are definitely a lot of people who are just temporarily upset or suffering from mild and easily treatable depression who do benefit from things like fences on bridges and national help hotlines. But more research is definitely needed. Someone else said in this thread that what we should really be doing is trying to keep people off the ledge entirely, not just trying to keep them from jumping, and I definitely agree there. What we really need is ways to keep people from wanting to die, not just ways to keep them from committing the act.
I have been depressed too for years.
What I can tell you is that one day, something wonderful and completely unexpected can happen and change everything :-)
But you should not count too much on it though. In fact, I would say you should do the best you can to stop worrying about yourself and care about things that could help others. It's after you have done that for some years that the wonderful things are most likely to happen!
That is actually more or less what happened to me, too. :)
Certain bad things which had been hanging around lifted, certain good things came into play. At that point I still had quite a depressed mindset but I had wanted to improve my life for so long and I had a lot of inner strength so I was able to grow a very positive, healthy mindset.
I really agree about trying to point yourself outwards and to help others around you. That's so important to me. In fact I have taken some off work recently just to create something which I believe might help people.
You seem to mix up three different points/views, which weakens your argument a lot:
- The word "platitudes" and the scare quotes around "cure" indicate that blanket skepticism towards depression therapy of the kind I see from conspiracy nuts. You disqualify yourself from serious discussion that way.
- "coping methods on how to deal with the facts of a sad and sorry life" indicates that you believe depression is caused by external rather than internal factors. This runs very much against well established knowledge. If you suffer from external factors, those should be improved, and it's primarily up to you to do that.
- In cases of depression where therapy is ineffective for some reason, should this be considered morally equivalent to someone wishing to die to end their suffering from cancer, MS, etc.? This is absolutely worth discussing. The main problem I see is that we know that depression generaly is curable - so at what point do you decide that a given case is not?
I'm not mixing up three different points/views, I was trying to give a faithful description of my own depression?!
My point was that I find the standard approach towards depression alienating because it completely discounts my own experiences. And as you neatly clarified, I disqualified myself from serious discussion of my own depression.
I don't think I have a better solution than what already exists, but I'm trying to get people to understand that human experience can't be completely generalised. When your framework disparages the remarks of people that have been depressed and have left depression surely there might be a problem there?
I will reiterate:
1. I had depression caused by long-term external factors.
It's popular to think this doesn't happen but it can happen.
2. When I went to see a therapist I received platitudes and
coping strategies however as I had an external factor this
felt like treating the effect and not the cause.
3. It was really bad. I feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of
people that have no way of empathising.
It's not that I don't believe people can be cured but a combination of internal and external factors can make this difficult, and in the few case I know of people that have been depressed they have been "cared for" but not "cured" by the system.
OK, I apologize. Obviously it's wrong for me to disqualify you from discussion your own experience - but it seemed to me like you were generalizing your experience to apply to everyone else and claim that depression therapy is humbug, which is also wrong. As you say, "human experience can't be completely generalised".
A therapist who completely discounts external factors in treating depression seems to me rather incompetent. But then, external factors can and should be changed by direct actions. But a depressed patient may not have the will or energy to change them - in which case the problem really is the depression. Of course, if change to the external factor is truly not possible, then coping strategies is really all that can be done.
I am married to a person who came very close to suicide and might have gone through with it except for the relative difficulty and the intervention of other people against her will.
After short-term medication, long-term therapy, and some lifestyle changes, we live mostly normal lives and have two happy children.
So you're damn right I'm asserting that there's a right decision and that I knew better than her in her chemically imbalanced state.
Now, this is one scenario that has a happy ending. I don't know what I would think about someone chronically and incurably suffering. But the idea of absolutely unfettered access to assisted suicide scares me.
I think most women have thought about abortion to some degree and formed an opinion on whether it's the right choice for them, or under what conditions they would entertain the idea of an abortion versus keeping the child in an unexpected pregnancy. In these cases, you're right: discouraging women who have thought about the process would be seen as in bad taste.
But what if the woman was being pressured to abort (or to keep) the child by outside pressure? Then intervention would be seen as supporting the woman, not as interfering, and it'd be in good taste.
IMO, suicide is very similar. A large proportion of suicide attempts are people who go on to regret it and successfully seek treatment. I don't think it's too much of a leap from that to the idea that a large proportion of suicides themselves are being done for the wrong reasons, i.e. the "outside pressure" of a brain that is suffering a mental illness.
I think most people who choose to commit suicide have given it a good few months or more of thinking. How long do people have to suffer in order for you to say "this person's done enough thinking about it, he can go"?
Speaking from experience, I disagree. I'm in favor of a generalized right to commit suicide as a fundamental ground of self-determination, but it can often be a compulsive rather a considered action; furthermore it can be based on a fundamentally irrational discounting of the future ('I'll never be happy again, my life can only get worse') which may be merely temporary or the result of developmental delays/deficits in handling emotional swings.
> A large proportion of suicide attempts are people who go on to regret it and successfully seek treatment.
A different conclusion you could draw from this are that the failed attempts failed because they weren't really trying to kill themselves, a sort of regretting-in-advance, if you will. I feel pretty safe in saying that successful suicide attempts don't go on to regret it, and it's not at all obvious that the failures and the successes are examples of the same phenomenon.
And why is that? It's her body and she has the right to remove the fetus in her. Why does she not have the right to put a tankful of Nitrogen in her lungs if she chooses to do so?
My position sees death as a permanent zero. If your life is continually in the negatives and you have to work every day to keep it there then putting it at zero permanently without any more effort required seems a good deal to me.
Well maybe the words chosen are wrong. I agree that there would be no "me" left to do the measuring. In death there would also be no "me" left to measure things and find it is negative either.
Right; so it can't be seen as a solution to suffering, right? Because you won't be suffering or not-suffering; you won't 'be' at all. Its not an answer, because the question is nonsensical at that point.
The only question worth considering is: how do I get from negative to positive? And the answer is: if the problem is external, then change your situation (move to Mexico; change your name; go plant potatoes in Idaho; whatever). If its internal, harder. You have to change yourself.
You seem to be forgetting that for a lot of these people it wasn't really a choice. Their mind was malfunctioning and led them to do something they probably wouldn't have a few months later if they received the right help. Your argument about animals is more related to assisted dying/euthanasia which probably represents a very small number of these suicides and is a separate discussion I feel.
> You seem to be forgetting that for a lot of these people it wasn't really a choice. Their mind was malfunctioning and led them to do something they probably wouldn't have a few months later
But if your choices are because you suffer from a mental illness such as depression, should we as a society just "shrug" and say "Well, it's their choice, let them do whatever they want." ?
I don't think so - especially when a lot of times, due to their illness, they cannot make their own choice.
The problem starts when you get into "is this a state of mind or an illness?" territory. I've heard the argument that people who have the wish to commit suicide are by definition mentally ill and should therefore be prevented from doing it even if we don't know which mental illness they suffer from.
Many people that have survived a suicide attempt (a guy jumping from the Golden Gate bridge is a well-known case) have regretted intermediately and go on to live a "normal" life.
FWIW, I agree with the general sentiment of your comment. If somebody has truly decided that the suffering they are experiencing outweighs whatever joy they experience from life, and they want to get off this ride, then they absolutely have the right to do so.
Of course not everybody who thinks they want to die is being rational at the time, and I'm all for making treatment, counseling, etc. available... but speaking for myself, I know that if/when I ever decide that I want out, I don't want anybody presuming some authorization to interfere with me.
So yeah, put me in the "right to die" camp.
But us humans, we have to suffer to the very end. Why?
Because it's a cultural meme that "human life is sacrosanct and must be preserved at all cost" or whatever. It's really pretty silly when you think about it.
I agree that it ought to be a free choice if it's coming from a place of sanity, but our society really must further research and understanding of underlying causes of those suicides which could be classified as systemic to our culture, which looking at suicide rates around the world and historically is the majority of America's suicides. Some reasons for suicide are almost unavoidable (e.g. thinking of a recent NPR story about a mother who lost her children), yet many suicides are ultimately a product of our way of life, of what we are taught, of how we were raised, of how we form social groups, of the types of pressures we put on each other, of struggling to pay bills, of living here in the first world among gaping income disparity (I remember an article from a few years ago linking income disparity with suicide rates), etc.. I don't claim to know exactly how our culture creates suicides or how it could be changed, but it's got to be acknowledged as the source of a lot of depression and suicide and as an area that needs more serious thinking.
If you're talking about people with terminal illnesses, then I completely agree. Otherwise, there needs to be a whole lot of counseling. Yes, its your decision, but everyone makes poor decisions, and this one is irreversible.
In some corner cases (i.e. terminal illness, serious disability etc.) I would agree with you. But mostly suicidal behaviour and attempts are caused by temporary difficulties (mostly failed relationships, financial difficulties, loneliness) or mental conditions that can be treated - depression, addiction. I personally know quite a few people that would be gone by now if had been surrounded by people with your attitude and that lead normal life today.
>I think that if I ever wanted to commit suicide I would be less likely to seek counseling out of fear I would be "prevented" from making my own choices.
If you already made your choice to commit suicide, you wouldn't seek counseling. But if you do, they won't do anything against your will unless you announce your suicide.
I think it's important to recognize the difference between allowing someone to do something and striving to get someone to not do something, even if it's allowed.
This is a very thoughtful article, which I see is part of a series from the same publication about suicide. There is good information here.
One paragraph jumped out at me: "Some states allow for court-ordered treatment plans. No studies have been done on whether this could prevent suicides, another example of gaps in knowledge, Caine says. Such ideas, he says, lie 'at the edge of what we know and what we don't know.'" Ugh, so even rather basic research on what might help hasn't been tried yet. We need to know more to do more.
The article also included some inspiring examples, including an Army officer who had come close to suicide himself about seven years ago during a combat deployment. "Today, he cannot recover from colon cancer diagnosed in 2012 that doctors declared terminal last year. In June, they said he had only months left. Faced with his own mortality, Fitch consulted his wife, Samantha Wolk, and reflected on the 22 veteran suicides occurring each day. He chose to devote his remaining time to prevent others from committing suicide.
"'I've always wanted to focus on trying to leave the world a better place,' he says."
Martin E. P. Seligman, in his book The Optimistic Child,[1] reviews some of the research current to about a decade ago about "self-esteem" programs in schools. They have long been known to be dangerous. The rising suicide rate compared to earlier birth cohorts in the United States suggests that young people in my generation and younger were not exposed in childhood to "optimism" as Seligman defines it but rather to "self-esteem" thinking, which doesn't leave people with enough inner strength to face a lot of challenges in life. Changing our thinking about what kind of thinking builds resilience in young people would help prevent suicide (and help everyone enjoy life better). There is already research on this, and we should apply it more.
"...the second-leading killer for those ages 15-34."
I would have never guessed that.
Now I can understand why some are trying to use social media to detect who might be expressing feeling that are common with depression and suicidal thoughts.
Well really, what did you expect the second leading killer to be? They are literally in the prime of their lives. In general, they are as physically healthy as they will ever be. The leading 'killer' is the 'unintentional injury' category. Take a look at these charts (Canada and USA both included for comparison).
It is all over the world. A large number of men are commuting suicide, mostly students and then married men. Yet if you look through pop media all you will see is how many women are 'attempting' suicide... :/
One large factor is the prevailing gender discrimination against males in medical care. Those men who goes against gender roles and actually do seek help against mental health problems are often meet with disbelieve, and do not get the same treatment and support as women. Doctors are found to diagnose depression in women more compared with men, even when two patients have similar scores on standardized measures of depression or present with identical symptoms.
That reported suicide attempts and thoughts are much more common among females than male seem to have quite obvious reasons. Most men do not report it, and from those who still do it, many gets ignored and is thus not recorded into the statistics.
While I agree with most of what you say, I believe we should be more careful claiming there are "obvious reasons" for something without scientific evidence. What you are saying, which might be correct (and I kind of agree with) is not scientifically proved (that I know of), there might really be a gender imbalance for suicidal tendencies but having "obvious reasons" is not enough, at least for me, to claim it as a fact. I find it strange and I'd prefer more work to be done on this matters.
The demographic of "people dying by suicide variously defined" may shift, but that won't have any effect on the leading causes of death for ages 15-34. It's a safe world out there now; young people generally don't die.
Thinking a little more about it, I'm not at all convinced it's a problem for suicide to be a leading cause of death in any demographic. Ordinal numbers are pretty useless for many purposes. I'd be pretty pleased to know that the only way for someone in my demographic (however defined) to die was by suicide.
America shrugs because suicide is a problem effecting men. Men outnumber women in suicide between 3:1 and 10:1[1]. If the tables were turned you better believe you would hear about it. The NFL would wear pink ribbons to raise awareness. You would constantly see articles relating patriarchy and female suicide. But these people killing themselves are men. These people are privileged and therefore are not being driven by controllable outside factors into suicide like some marginalized group. This is why I find the term privilege getting thrown around so offensive. The problem isn't that it lacks validity(it has some). The problem is we're trying to build an inclusive society and calling someone privileged is now a way to marginalize the needs and perspectives of others.
How much does the US spend on anti-terrorism activities[1] (which is, finger in the air, maybe 5000 people killed in 15 years?) compared to their mental health system (6500 people dead every -two months-)?
Should they go kill themselves? Funny that the mental failings of the jumper evoke such sympathy and the mental failings of the "asshole" evoke such hatred.
There's a significant qualitative difference between someone being self-destructive (albeit with traumatic consequences for those who are connected to them) and engineering the destruction of someone else.
There may be mental failings involved which are outside the control of the individual, but I don't think that's the whole story or we'd have to throw the idea of moral agency out the window (I picked the example I did because the person neither appeared nor claimed to suffer cognitive impairment AFAIK). We are actors as well as being acted upon by our environment and biology; insofar as our activities impact others, we have some responsibility to regulate them.
When visiting the US this summer, we walked across the Golden Gate (which at the time didn't have the "anti-suicide rails" that I believe are planned).
In several places there were both help phones and signs asking people to seek help, and also in one place there was graffiti on the pavement saying something like "somebody loves you". It was quite moving.
You have to find the will and reason to live yourself if you really think life is that grim that you have to end it I have only one thing to say to you make sure you are 100% certain about that and there's no other way out of your situation before you do it this is one of the few things that cannot be undone.
There's almost certainly better options you can try before doing this.
Frankly, I'm surprized that this is seemingly the first mention of this...
"The Suicide Prevention Resource Center synthesized these studies and estimated that between 30 and 40% of LGBT youth, depending on age and sex groups, have attempted suicide."
I went to the website of the organization you mentioned. I browsed and then searched that website. A link there took me to another organization, the American Association of Suicidology, at first to a dead link, then I browsed and searched that organization's website, and found a fact sheet on the issue you bring up.[1] The fact sheet mentions some studies and their conclusions, without detailed citations or descriptions of methodology, and points out "Because no reliable data exists, we do not know whether LGBT youth die by suicide more frequently than their straight peers. Sexual orientation and gender identity data are not included on death certificates so aggregated national death data do not include this information. In addition, many LGBT youth do not disclose this information to family members and friends; as a result, sexual orientation and gender identity often do not show up in psychological autopsy interviews." In other words, we are not completely sure that LGBT status is a risk factor for completed suicide in the United States, although that is the current working hypothesis among many suicide researchers. As the article submitted to open the thread here today makes clear, there is a lot of basis research on suicide that still needs to be done.
A month ago I was in San Diego and a homeless guy walking past me told me he was trying he kill himself and was looking for the path to the bridge. He kept walking, passing by a police officer. I told the police officer he might want to keep an eye on the guy and told him that he was trying to kill himself. The officer just said, "He should try harder." I was shocked.
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.
-- Dorothy Parker, "Resume", 1926
I think there should be a move towards targeting government policies that improve the numbers on measures like suicide and reported happiness. There are quite a lot of stats out there and they vary a lot from country to country - Wikipedia has Lithuania at 31 suicides per 100k per year, Greece at 3.5 and the UK and US in the middle somewhere around 12. You could try figuring what make the difference (perhaps with regression analysis?) and implementing policies to make it more like Greece and less like Lithuania perhaps.
One of the differences that jumps out at me about Lithuania and Greece is climate. I first learned about the importance of daylight for preventing depression (and thus suicide) from an Internet comment about twenty years ago when I wondered why Canada's rate of completed suicide is as high as it is, even though I would have guessed that its access to guns for young people might be a little less than in the United States. The answer, given to me by a Canadian scientist, is that Canada is nearer to the North Pole and farther from the Equator, and so it has a long winter season with little daylight.
In the old days, before United Nations statistics were on the World Wide Web, I actually went to a university library and looked up thick physical volumes of World Health Organisation statistics. The general relationship between polar latitude and high suicide rate, and equatorial latitude and lower suicide rate, holds up worldwide, with some exceptional-looking cases mostly explained by cloudiness. Low exposure to outdoor light is a suicide risk, and high exposure to cheery sunshine is a protective factor against suicide (but can lead to mania, known as "running amok" in some equatorial places). The author of the poem "Home on the Range" knew this: a place "Where seldom is heard a discouraging word / And the sky is not cloudy all day" like the Great Plains is protective against depression and suicide.
One in a 100 people in the US will die by suicide. It's a common cause of death.
Could suicide and depression be a response to civilization and modernity? This article cites some evidence that the suicide rate was much lower among various groups of hunter-gatherers:
I believe when it was illegal here in the UK, coroners would look for ways to record the death in more favourable ways (mostly for the family). So an overdose would be recorded as death by misadventure and not suicide.
It is a terrible idea. What are the consequences? Punishment for those who attempt and fail or punishment for the families of those who succeed by denying them life insurance, proper burial and so on.
I don't know how you would possibly go about making suicide illegal, but punishing those left behind sounds like the worst possible "solution" to suicide.
40,000 is an awfully large number but it is less than the number of gun deaths in the US (put at around 50-60,000 depending on the sources), which would be much easier to prevent
> Each suicide costs society about $1 million in medical and lost-work expenses and emotionally victimizes an average of 10 other people.
So... the 10 other people emotionally victimized is an average figure, but the $1 million in medical costs isn't? How does finding a dead body rack up any medical expenses?
Depending on the method of suicide, clean-up. A popular way to go here in NL seems to be to jump in front of a train. Traumatized train personnel, a train full of people delayed for hours, loads of clean-up, etc. Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge seems to be relatively clean in comparison.
Taking a day of leave doesn't cause any lost-work expenses, under the standard system of "you get this much leave, and it doesn't roll over". If I take 15 days off in a year, the number of days I work is totally unaffected by whether one of the days off was spent at a funeral, or in some other way.
Say an unemployed 17-year-old kills himself and his funeral is held on a Sunday. I don't think that's a huge stretch, but it results in no days of leave, no work days lost to a funeral, and no sudden job opening needing to be filled.
And clean-up, like Cthulhu_ mentions, isn't a lost-work expense, it's an additional-work expense.
No, it's standard for Bereavement leave to come separably from normal paid time off, similar to maternity leave. It almost never comes from the same "days off" bucket.
