Taken from a couple of posts I made on another thread (some of it more relevant to you than other parts).
The Samaritans stress the that there should be a focus on local suicide prevention. With co-ordination and prioritisation of suicide prevention activity, particularly targeting areas with high levels of socio-economic deprivation. And that there should be responsible portrayal of suicide in the media.
They also stress the following:
Be careful of small groups/populations
The size of populations should be considered when looking at suicide rates. Smaller populations often produce rates that are less reliable as the rates per 100,000 are based on small numbers. Therefore, differences in the number of suicides may have a bigger impact on the rate than in a larger population. An example of this might be suicide in older people (eg over 80 years), as the population size is lower than in younger age groups
(Note here that the size of the population over 80 is much bigger than the trans community and they say this population size is small enough to cause problems with suicide rates).
and of course the obligatory:
Sensitive and responsible reporting of suicide
When talking about suicide publically or in the media, it is crucial to do so sensitively and responsibly, to minimise the risk of contagion (a phenomenon of suicidal behaviours that seems to occur as a result of previous suicides or attempts by others). Samaritans’ Media Guidelines provide advice for journalists about how to do this. These guidelines are often most related to reporting of occurrences of suicides, however, the principles of these guidelines should be followed for the reporting of suicide statistics and particularly when reporting on increases of suicides in particular groups.
Their report has some other really cracking points to consider when talking about suicide
The Samaritans also talk about how the rate of suicide is recorded. This is pretty significant, because there is a difference between the sexes in how they attempt suicide.
It is commonly acknowledged within the field of suicide research and prevention that official statistics underestimate the ‘true’ number (and, therefore, rate) of suicide.
One of the main reasons for the under-reporting of suicide is the misclassification of deaths. This means that the cause of death is coded as something other than suicide. An example of this is where a coroner cannot establish whether there was intent by the individual to take their own life. Consequently, the cause of death may be recorded as one of ‘undetermined intent’ or ‘accidental’. This may occur in situations where the death involved a road traffic accident or is long-term illness. It could also be difficult to determine whether there was intent to die in situations of self harm leading to suicide.
The difference in methods of suicide between males and females is discussed by many researchers historically: males seem to choose more ‘final’ and ‘obvious’ methods than females. It may be that in methods more commonly used by females, the intent cannot be determined (or assumed) as easily as in methods more common to males. This may, in part, explain some of the variation in rates between the genders, as there may be more under-reporting of suicidal deaths in females.
Let me repeat here:
They are saying that female suicides are perhaps more likely to be coded as accidental or undetermined intent due to the methods chosen rather than classified as suicides.
Let me note here again:
Traditionally women have been twice as likely to attempt suicide than men, but men were four times more likely to actually succeed in killing themselves.
They stress that there is a lack of research into the reliability of suicide statistics and that there were lots of other factors that lead to inconsistencies in data, nationally, regionally and from coroner to coroner. They point to whether like for like is actually being compared and whether coroner verdicts indicate intent or not, taking into account cultural or social sensitivities. (They are often open to subjectivity and interpretation for this reason).
They state:
Reliability is affected by the multiple definitions of suicide. Silverman suggested that a decade ago, there were more than 27 definitions of suicide used in the research literature. Today, the problem of defining and classifying suicide and suicidal behaviours in research is still a problem which hinders our understanding of the subject
In short, the Samaritans say just how hard it is to compare suicide rates and the degree to which they are open to interpretation abuse. And they say that, there is a difference between males and females, which is likely to lead to under reporting, particularly in women.
And having read the Samaritans stuff, I'd argue that because there is a cultural lean towards the idea that trans people are more likely to attempt suicide, that also lends itself to coroners perhaps being more likely, not less likely, to record a death as suicide because there isn't a taboo there but a social expectation.
I could be wrong about this, but the Samaritans in making the point that coroners are free to make narrative verdicts or to omit suicide from a verdict due to cultural or family sensitivities, by default could mean the converse if a family want / expect a verdict of suicide.
Not only have you got a potential social contagion for someone to take those actions in the first place, you've also got a bias as to how actions will be interpreted afterwards, which isn't the same as the general population.
