D. Wasserman, Sweden
Karolinska Institutet CHIS National Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention of Mental Ill-HealthModerator of 3 Sessions
Presenter of 9 Presentations
Live Q&A
Midday Roundup
Live Q&A
Live Q&A
Live Q&A
Live Q&A
S0011 - Suicidality in Women
ABSTRACT
Abstract Body
Every year, around 800,000 people die by suicide globally. Whist suicide mortality rates are higher among men, women typically have higher rates of suicidal ideation and behaviours. Despite this fact, suicidality in women is still of grave concern as 71% of women’s violent deaths is accounted for by suicide – a greater percentage than men’s. Suicide patterns among women differ between countries and regions. For example, there is a greater difference in suicide rates between men and women in high-income countries in comparison to low- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, many theories exist to explain women’s suicidality. Yet many of the dominant theories have been challenged from studies in both low- to middle-income and high-income countries. Further research that focuses on the context and culture, rather than the individual, is warranted and will be important for preventative efforts of women’s suicidal behaviours.
S0060 - Swedish Perspectives and Ethical Discussion
ABSTRACT
Abstract Body
As COVID-19 spread, many countries in the world responded swiftly in an attempt to reduce transmission. Sweden, however, took a different approach to many other nations and did not implement a nationwide lockdown, instead deciding on a more “holistic approach to public health”. The focus was on minimising transmission as much as possible, protecting those in risk groups, ensuring that the response strategies were sustainable long-term, mitigating other health concerns as a result of the response and that evidence-based methods were used as much as possible. At this stage, it is difficult to know how exactly the Swedish strategy has fared in comparison to other responses. In Sweden, there has been much debate about the strategy, particularly concerning the protection of the elderly due to unexpectedly high mortality rates in the older population as well as among residents in retirement homes. Many ethical questions remain in regard to which strategies would have been preferable.
W0012 - Promoting Physical Distancing and Not Social Distancing: When the Words Matter
ABSTRACT
Abstract Body
As COVID-19 began to plague the world, the term ‘social distancing’ was frequently used, encouraging people to keep a safe physical distance from others to reduce the transmission of the virus. Despite being well-intended, the term has negative implications, further isolating vulnerable groups in society by evoking feelings of rejection and exclusion. For this reason, the members of the European Psychiatric Association Ethics Committee wrote an e-letter in response to an opinion piece published by Science (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6484/1282/tab-e-letters), and also wrote to the European Psychiatry (https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2020.60) and the World Health Organisation explaining why the term ‘physical distancing’ should instead be used among policymakers, governments and the general public. Words are important and carry great meaning. Therefore, by using the term physical distancing and not social distancing the message becomes clear, individuals should remain physically distant but socially connected to protect the vulnerable communities in societies. The World Health Organisation, as well as the Lancet journals, adopting the term physical distancing in replacement of social distancing, was a rewarding and important step in the right direction.