response 195 of 357:

Jan 17 05:31 UTC 2004

Nope.  Instead I'll do what I should have done in the first
place - make my point by using a fictional example.

The example: One morning we log on, coffee in hand, to find one of our
regular users, an old friend to many, reports he's depressed and can't
seem to find a reason for living.. He details fantasies about how he
could kill himself.  You know, from his comments, that his family has no
clue of his suicidal thoughts. 

If I cared what happened here, and was worried he was a credible threat to
himself, I'd probably ask someone who could read such behavior better than
I, for advice, if I knew doing so would be casual and off the record.  So
I show the expert the item, without additional information or identifying
information.

The advice comes back that it's scary stuff, to be sure, and, "A really
hard call", but it could be benign venting. 

So I ponder what to do and decide to wait it out a bit longer.  But I'm
watching and ready to intervene if the threats persist.  But low and
behold, time and professional help, and community support seems to be be
helping enough that the threats slow and cease.  In the end pointing his
family to the discussion wasn't necessary and I'm relieved to not be
involved. 

But it was a gamble.  If I'd decided to let the family know of his
suicidal statements, would that have been wrong?  I'm still not sure. 
When someone makes such provocative statements it's usually a call for
help.  Usually.  But how much help is appropriate when the threats are
made in a public forum where we encourage people to tell all?  Would going
to the family have been the right thing to do no matter how clear it was
he was in deep trouble? 

To be honest, in the situation I faced, I decided to do nothing.  Some of
my inaction was due to the fact I didn't have to intervene, legally.  Had
this been a child, yes, the law requires a nurse to inform the parent. 
But I can simply watch when it's an adult and I'm off duty.  That sounds
so cold, but it's true.

So this is a powerful thing we've got going.  We encourage anyone to share
their most personal problems, but on a public access system, where items
live forever, and all that help you got will live on and on, helping
others whether you want it there or not. 

Is it any wonder that every once in a while we get confused about the
priorities?  Which is it?  Open access?  No censorship?  Control of
private information?  That's what we have to find out.