OPINIONS

Op-Ed: Stanford’s silence on suicide is wrong

	Brendan O'Byrne

By: Brendan O'Byrne

Last week, a Yale freshman named Zach Brunt killed himself in a physics lab on campus. The next day, a candlelight vigil was held in front of his residence. Yale’s Dean of Students sent a campus-wide email addressing the death within 24 hours, and alerted students to available mental health resources.

Last Saturday, a Harvard senior named Wendy Chang hanged herself in her room. That same day, a vigil was held inside her residence. That same day, the Dean of Harvard College sent a campus-wide email alerting students to the tragedy.

A month ago, Stanford sophomore Samantha Wopat killed herself in her campus residence. The silence from Stanford was deafening.

I recognize that suicide is a difficult thing to discuss, especially on a college campus. It affects us all in different ways, and privacy restrictions at times restrain University action.

However, nothing can excuse a weeklong silence about a student’s death, broken only by a short op-ed in our pages. Additionally, no administrator has addressed campus about suicide. The University’s failure to foster a campus dialogue about mental health or mental illness is appalling.

Should we not speak openly about suicide and mental illness? Is acknowledging your students aren’t always healthy a bad thing? Does Stanford truly believe that an event like this, which impacts so many students on so many levels, shouldn’t be addressed directly and honestly?

What Harvard and Yale appear to recognize – and what for some reason Stanford seems incapable of realizing – is that students will talk about suicide. Stanford’s job is to make that conversation safe, open and informed by campus resources and mental health professionals. Their job is to make sure we know that they are there for us if we need them. Following a suicide of a fellow student, we needed them. They weren’t there.

At Yale’s campus vigil, the head of Zach’s residence hall told students that Zach’s death should remind them, “We don’t live in a perfect world.” That’s an important message. Those are the words of a leader who wants his students to know it is normal to struggle and feel overwhelmed in the face of immeasurable tragedy, even if they happen to also attend a “dream school.”

I fear Stanford’s unwillingness or inability to convey a similar message will only contribute to the silence that too often surrounds mental health problems and mental illness on this campus. Why did it take them a week to reach out to us? Why was there no meaningful, campus-wide response? Why did our peer institutions handle this in such a drastically different way?

Tragedies such as these often raise hard, unanswerable questions. The lack of university response shouldn’t raise more. I know Stanford works hard to make this an exceptional university to attend. But sometimes, acknowledging this is not a perfect world can be an important step toward improving it.

Brendan O’Byrne ’14

Deputy Editor, The Stanford Daily

About Brendan O'Byrne

Brendan is a senior staff writer at The Stanford Daily. Previously he was the executive editor, the deputy editor, a news desk editor and a writer for the news section. He's a history major originally from New Orleans.

Guest

How do you know that Wendy Chang hanged herself in her room? The coroner’s report does not seem to go into that much detail. Just want to make sure you’re not spreading unfounded rumors.
Google It.

Google it.
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/cambridge/articles/2012/04/27/harvard_students_death_ruled_a_suicide/
guest

Reading about the recent suicide in the local papers, I too was shocked at the lack of response by campus administrators. As a student who grappled with this issue at Stanford in the 1970’s and received little to no help, I had hoped that things had improved. I see the increased pressures that all college students face today and had hoped that my son, who is currently at Stanford, would be supported and informed about how to handle feelings of hopelessness and isolation should he or one of his friends need help. Any future financial contributions I make to the University will not go to a general fund for a new science wing or arts center but will be for student mental health services.
Guest

One argument against publicizing suicides is that it may be a trigger for others contemplating suicide. However, I don’t think that is sufficient reason to not openly address mental health issues on campus. I think the school does try to provide support by addressing stress and happiness, but I believe that we also need an open and honest approach that doesn’t euphemize what is really a prevalent health problem.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Politically-Incorrect/100001896293128 Politically Incorrect

First of all I want to offer my sincere condolences to the families of these young people. Nobody can be in their shoes as to the pain the are experiencing. I know what’s like to lose a young close friend in dramatic circumstances and the experience left me devastated for many months.

The person who wrote the above must be a bit stupid though. The Boston Globe article says

“Terrel Harris, a spokesman for the agency that oversees the medical
examiner, said Thursday that the cause of death of Wendy Chang, 22, of
Irvine, Calif., has been ruled as asphyxia by hanging.”

If the coroner says it’s suicide caused by “asphyxia by hanging” I don’t know how you could describe things otherwise.
Truth Seeker

The discussion that follows these suicides should not only address stress on campus and the so called stigma of mental illness, but also standard paradigms of care for mental disorders and the burden that comes from receiving a diagnosis that is deemed to be lifelong. I believe that current standards of care are seriously flawed, that the negative effects of medication (both short and long term) are grossly underestimated, and that the assumption that disorders are “brain diseases” is unproven. One reason administrators don’t speak up is that their staff is often responsible for the care that many of these students received just prior to their deaths. The assumption that psychiatric medications are safe and effective is based on a lot of bogus science that is financed by pharmaceutical companies with other agendas than a person’s well being. The writer is correct that we need to respond openly to these deaths and start a discussion, but it needs to go beyond clichés about mental illness and extend to the care these victims were receiving, the field of psychiatry, and the egregious ways in which that field has lost its direction. That is the white elephant in the room that almost everyone wants to ignore.
Stop Psychiatry

Very well said. Time to expose this lie. And to document that you are not talking out of the blue, here is some data,

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30sun2.html

“Now, internal drug company e-mail and documents
that surfaced in a lawsuit have sketched out what looks like an unsavory
collaboration between Dr. Biederman and Johnson & Johnson to generate and
disseminate data that would support use of an antipsychotic drug, Risperdal, in
children, a controversial target group.” “The company also drafted a scientific abstract on
Risperdal for Dr Biederman to sign — as if he were the author — before it
was presented at a professional meeting. And it sought his advice on how to
handle the uncomfortable fact, not mentioned in the abstract, that children
given placebos, not just those given Risperdal, also improved
significantly.”

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-02/lifestyle/29731040_1_harvard-doctors-harvard-medical-school-physicians

“Concluding a three-year investigation,
Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School sanctioned renowned
child psychiatrist Dr. Joseph Biederman and two colleagues after finding they
violated conflict of interest rules.”

More ghostwriting conflicts of interests charges (the first video is about the infamous Paxil study 329, which was used to promote antidepressant Paxil despite the fact that it increased the risk of suicidal thoughts in young people),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0ffzsrDkSQ
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/health/policy/04drug.html

And yes, these conflicts of interests affected Stanford’s own Alan Schatzberg,http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/letters/public-health/ph-iis-20101129.html

Alan Schatzberg’s case is outrageous because he served as president of the American Psychiatric Association while the extent of his misconduct was already known (both as author of a ghostwritten book and as having a significant conflict of interest in a drug which was being evaluated with NIH money for treatment of depression).

Of course big pharma has even infiltrated the “alleged” advocates of patients,

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/health/22nami.html

“The alliance, known as NAMI, has long been
criticized for coordinating some of its lobbying efforts with drug makers and
for pushing legislation that also benefits industry…. The mental health
alliance, which is hugely influential in many state capitols, has refused for
years to disclose specifics of its fund-raising, saying the details were
private…. But according to investigators in Mr.

Grassley’s office and documents obtained by The New York
Times, drug makers from 2006 to 2008 contributed nearly $23 million to the
alliance, about three-quarters of its donations.”

Here you have the “grants” from Q4 of 2011, http://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Inform_Yourself/About_NAMI/Governance/Major_Foundation_and_Corporate_Support/WebRegistry4Q2011.pdf

Things don’t end up there,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28677805/ns/health-health_care/t/eli-lilly-settles-zyprexa-lawsuit-billion/

“Eli Lilly & Co. said Thursday it pleaded guilty
to a charge that it illegally marketed the anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa for an
unapproved use, and will pay $1.42 billion to settle civil suits and end the
criminal investigation”

How many Stanford students are prescribed Rispedal or Zyprexa off label? Who can honestly believe that pharmaceutical companies have nothing to do with off label prescription of antipsychotics?

Fortunately the American media is beginning to echo the corruption of these people, although to my opinion not strongly enough,

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/23/145525853/when-it-comes-to-depression-serotonin-isnt-the-whole-story

” When It Comes To Depression, Serotonin Isn’t The
Whole Story …

So why are so many people still talking about low
serotonin causing depression?”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57380893/treating-depression-is-there-a-placebo-effect/

” “The difference between the effect of a
placebo and the effect of an antidepressant is minimal for most people,”
says Harvard scientist Irving Kirsch. Will Kirsch’s research, and the work of
others, change the $11.3 billion antidepressant industry? Lesley Stahl
investigates.”

As to what causes depression? Nobody really knows,

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7399368n&tag=segementExtraScroller;housing

This is probably one of the biggest scandals of your time that contributes to increase the stigma associated with mental disorders.
Stop Psychiatry

And I forgot to mention; a few years ago there was a kind of social experiment that proved beyond reasonable doubt that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_mongering works,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoppJOtRLe4
Student

You do have to consider the family’s interests in publicizing the matter. Perhaps they did not wish for the Stanford community to know, at least immediately, the cause of death of their daughter. I think the Stanford administration does care deeply about the mental health of students, and while it’s always an endeavor to strengthen efforts to de-stigmatize mental illness, it’s not an easy task.
Watermelonmp

You realize for that week Stanford was silent, she was alive, right? I was one of Sam’s close friends, and that was an excruciating week that I appreciated not having people swarming about it begging for details while I was holding on for hope that she could pull through. In my opinion the silence for that week was to protect her from that kind of publicity if she survived.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I’m not going to comment about what Stanford should do now, but during that week it meant a lot to me to have some privacy to prepare myself and grieve for an amazing person who I will never see again.
Student

Great article
Luke

I wholeheartedly agree, Brendan.
http://www.facebook.com/bobyrne Brendan O’Byrne

Thanks for your comment. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I was referring to the week in between her death and the op-ed, not her hospitalization. There was no University statement a week following her death. I would never want the University to comment on a student who was in the hospital.
Nomnivore

We can also do much more to prevent suicides. One can only guess as to the reasons for the tragedies mentioned but the typical contributor is academic pressure. It can be pretty upsetting to screw up your GPA from overloading on courses or simply having a bad day during finals. It’s pretty easy to mask depression from friends and to let it fester, and I think part of this is because grades aren’t discussed between students and advisors as much as they should (it’s typically up to the student to initiate the conversation, and there’s so much more that can be done to help students take their transcripts with a grain of salt).
bananapie1

First of all, the university sent out the op-ed the day after her death.
Second of all, why is it any of Stanford’s business to publicize how everyone died? A week or two ago a coach died (no need to say what team he coached). I don’t see you complaining about how Stanford didn’t publicize that or the way he died. Why isn’t that bothering? Because it wasn’t a suicide?
The way she died was clearly something that her family did not want to come out…not Stanford…her family!!!! Do you realize she had a twin sister? Do you understand what she must be going through when everyone around her knows that her sister committed suicide? How is it any of you business, or anyone’s business for that matter, how she died?
There are quite a few suicides at Stanford and at all other big Universities every year! Sometime they don’t even send a message letting people know that the person died. BECAUSE IT’S NON OF PEOPLE’S BUSINESS!!! Except for her friends and family.
When your kid commits suicide and you ask the University to not publicize I hope there is someone like you spreading it around
Guest

I fall on both sides of this issue, in many ways. I absolutely agree that the family’s wishes need to be honored – although none of us here know what the family has requested – and sensitivity maintained given the continued presence of her twin and friends and teammates on campus.However, ignoring the issue altogether is not alright. Suicide and depressions are large issues on our campus, and issues that the larger Stanford community has largely stigmatized. How frequently have you been asked, “How are you doing?” and answered with something other than, “Fine” or “Well”? Try it sometime. The vast majority of students will look at you with surprise. Some won’t even notice, assuming they already knew your answer.I spent my first months of freshman year here depressed out of my mind, and unable to tell anyone about it because it seemed like everyone was happy and smiling. Stanford students need to talk about this – how it’s okay not to be okay. It’s alright to have a bad day! It’s alright to be stressed! it’s even alright to be depressed! Let’s TALK about these things, because they’re all NATURAL.In other words, I don’t think this conversation needs to start in direct correlation to Sam’s tragic death. But the conversation NEEDS to happen. Maybe this is a little bright light – the spark of discussion – that can come from the death of such a star? Whatever the case might be, let’s not talk about whether the University should have announced cause of death sooner, etc. Let’s instead talk about the real lack of substantial discussion on mental illness at Stanford.
bubbles

It almost seems like Stanford, by trying to create a protected environment where we can develop as intellectuals, leaders, etc. has failed to recognize that adversity might be the one thing that makes us grow the most.

Having been in the bubble for two years, I’ve almost forgotten how it feels to see crime and to see adversity. Not the hot prowl bogus or the occasional petty crime, which while important, is surely not the most serious thing that has happened on our campus. Coming from a high school located in the projects, that was eye-opening. It was, in a sense, a privilege to have been exposed to that early on. People who have been in private schools all their lives and have largely been sheltered from these less positive aspects of living, and I think that Stanford has been very similar in fostering this sense of security.
Harvard Student

Or you could understand that this information was not given to Harvard students. We were told the coroner was still evaluating her death. The fact that she hanged herself only came out today, with the Globe (and in fact, I only found out via this article).
Max

“Do you realize she had a twin sister? Do you understand what she must be going through when everyone around her knows that her sister committed suicide?”

I think that this is precisely the sort of understanding of suicide that a better understanding and discussion of mental health is meant to undo. The way you phrased the issue makes it seem as if her family should be ashamed that she committed suicide. It’s not just that the people around her twin know that she lost a sister, but the fact that she killed herself makes it something she REALLY doesn’t want people to know.

My mother committed suicide, so I need not speak in the hypothetical. When I wrote her obituary, I chose to be very public about how she died because I think that it is an epidemic which we are failing to perceive as the true disease it is. And I think that students have a right to know and to care. I do not believe that the Stanford community would do anything but offer their love and support for her family, and I think we all have a right and an obligation to become more active in preventing these tragedies.
Bivens

This post has inspired me to come out to my parents and tell them that I am gay.
bananapie1

Listen I’m a psych major, I have a very good understanding of suicide and mental health. I’m sorry about your mom. But the problem here is that you didn’t lose your child or sister you lost your mom. When you lose your child you feel endless guilt that you didn’t do more to help her or support her, even if you did all that you could. A lot of people with depression get treatment and still end up committing suicide. However, people don’t understand that and end up blaming themselves for not being able to prevent what happened. So, what I’m saying is not that her family should be ashamed that she committed suicide, but that they feel guilty about it for not good reason.
Also same way you made the decision to publicize how your mom died, same way Sam’s family made the decision to not to and people have to respect that, and Stanford has to respect that also.
Lastly, I agree the suicide in colleges is a major issue but we shouldn’t expect the university to take action for preventing it only after one suicide happens. Why weren’t people complaining about this 2 months ago? Suicide was still a very serious issues then. I agree that Stanford resources related to mental health problems are very insufficient but that was the case two months ago and no one complained then either. Suicide and mental health problems should be addressed in a constant basis and not only after something like this happens.
But, the former has nothing to do the latter. If Sam’s family didn’t want to publicize the causes of her death for whatever reason they have every right to do so, and Stanford can’t and shouldn’t do anything about this specific issue. When it comes do dealing with mental health issues in the university however I do agree that things need to change, and I have already talked to housing and other people about the terrible job they did supporting the people that were very close to Sam and very affected by her loss
Victoria Shantrell

I personally don’t think vigils for suicide are necessary or even “proper.” And as a Stanford alum who spent an entire year + at CAPS receiving services, I would say that Stanford makes it pretty clear that CAPS is available and I’ve seen this message throughout my time there. This is probably because I was pretty involved in the Black community; CAPS outreach to marginalized communities is somewhat targeted and these communities often put on programming to discuss these matters. Stanford tends to allow students the freedom to determine the dialogue and shape the discourse with programming, student initiated courses, etc. So instead of waiting for admin, you can initiate the dialogue (as you have with this article) on your own. But I still stand by my statement of the conversation goes on and goes on often; maybe it’s you (and you might actually be representative of a specific community) who isn’t joining in.
Max

I don’t appreciate the way you attempt to trivialize the death of a parent, as if the loss of family members can be quantified and compared. I felt and continue, from time to time, incredibly guilty about my mother’s death. I don’t think that’s how one should have to feel.
The death of someone loved should be grieved; mourning is natural and important. Suicide, however, appears to have a certain intentionality that I believe is misunderstood. I do not believe that (very many) people kill themselves because of the true circumstances of their lives; suicide is he result of mental illness which distorts our perceptions and experiences, making us hopeless no matter what is actually going on in our lives and who is around us.
If my mother had died of cancer, her absence would have cut as deep, but I do not think I would have felt guilty. If subsequently I learned that her cancer may have been caused or exacerbated by some carcinogen at her workplace, I would have wanted to do something to help make it a safer place for everyone. If she had gone to a doctor who missed diagnosing her cancer, I would have wanted to devote resources to better screening and checkups. That’s what I want here. I want us to think about how we can make Stanford a place that people come forward to talk about these issues before it is too late.
As you noticed, I chose to publicize the cause of my mother’s death, but I do not think that doing so was or should be a matter of choice. I think to keep silent about the issue of suicide is to stand idle during a crisis, and I brought up my mother only to point out that I have practiced what I preach.
RA

Where was ResEd? As an RA, I would have liked to have been (1) informed of the potential reverberations of the incidences, (2) supported vis-a-vis a reminder of all resources available as well as tips for beginning a conversation about mental health and illness – and specifically about suicide – that is both mindful and restorative, and (3) engaged in a plan to help my peer RAs who have had to contend with this personally, as well as to help create a space on campus where the affected could collectively reflect on the losses that our community has faced. There was no ResEd, there is no information, there is no conversation, there is no engagement.

It’s pathetic how the bureaucratic apparatus finds itself everpresent in Chi Theta Chi’s kitchen and bedrooms but is nowhere to be seen when matters of true concern affect our residential community. We need real leaders in ResEd who can both competently and courageously initiate the healing process, not the current figureheads who perform “leadership” via punitive slaps on the wrist, threats, and otherwise heavyhanded hustling.
bananapie1

So if your mom had died from cancer only then you would have tried to do something to make her working place safer or whatever? So what you are saying is only when one of your loved ones dies from something you should become responsible for preventing other people from dying due to the same cause? The problem here is prevention Max. Preventing your mom or Sam or anyone from committing suicide. That’s what Stanford has failed to do…preventing!!! After a suicide happens then it’s too late. Stanford should be addressing suicide and mental issues every day not only after Sam’s death. That’s why I think her parents publicizing her suicide has nothing to do with how Stanford should treat/have been treated sensitive issues like this.
And lastly, good for you for practicing what you preach. But preaching means that there is a choice that people have and you are advising them to make one or another. So yes there is a choice that people can make, publicizing or not. And we should respect that same way people respected your decision to publicize how your mother died.
Copy-cat Concern

The one thing I wonder is if Stanford has a policy against vigils/emails etc relating to suicides because of concern for copy-cat suicides. This doesn’t explain ResEd not supporting RAs etc though. Can anyone comment on the copy-cat issue vs. vigil/email/publicity/etc?
Todd

Sam died on March 25, and the press release came out on March 26 (http://www.gostanford.com/sports/w-volley/spec-rel/032612aac.html). It did not give a cause of death. I do not know why.
Guest

I’m not sure I understand your complaint. The top-level comment was half-accusing the author of spreading rumor without seeing if he could find the information himself. The Daily publishes things without proper research sometimes, but this was not one of those cases. How is pointing that out stupid?
http://www.facebook.com/tmitchmd Todd Mitchell

Congratulations to you Brendan for your courage in declaring that the “Emperor has no clothes.” Certainly all of our hearts go out to her sister and family; however, Sam was legally an adult and as such no one had the right to enforce a gag order regarding her cause of death. Stanford’s silence has not only further injured the greater Stanford community; it has also been a tragic opportunity missed to shine a long overdue spotlight on the iceberg of eating disorders and mental illness among college athletes nationwide…
Remembering Minna

Very very sad and distressed to come across this article and more info on recent Stanford suicides 11 years after the suicide of Stanford student Minna Sandmeyer, who was missing and whose weeks-long search galvanized both the campus and wider communities.
http://www.facebook.com/john.smyth.7796420 John Smyth

As someone who attends Stanford and has struggled with mental illness for most of my life, I can say that, in the few times that I have had the courage to confide in someone at Stanford about my struggles, I have been met with derision and a seeming inability to understand mental illness. The message was loud and clear: we don’t talk about those things here. Even with the mere mention of mental illness, the university seems much more concerned with academic progress than with the welfare of the student. Why would anyone come forward to reveal their deepest fears and concerns in such a cold and uncaring environment?