If you used Samaritans - I can assure you that we are confidential and therefore non-interventionist, no matter where in the world we are, even in the US (Click for NY Samaritans info, for example)....
"We," huh! Didn't know that!!
"If you didn't, then it merely fuels my suspicions that most, if not all suicide crisis centres in the US are interventionist (except Samaritans)."
Yep--you do best be careful about what you say. I know the laws pertaining but through my long years of AA meetings have heard of people (i.e., this just happened on here to a beloved member who I respect so much as to not to name him or her) being *bam*, whisked off for a minimum 72 TDO.
I do hope I said clearly that that's not always and necessarily a *bad* policy--except the most obvious drawback and is possibly keeping people away from seeking help.
Man, it's a dilemma to me. You save a person for the moment; if they are indigent here in the states AND severe; i.e., can't shake an obsession with just 'doing it', then you're....
I'm actually leaving this post "open," most certainly unresolved.
For IF you cannot shake an obsession suicide and are indigigent (relagated to comparatively shoddy outpatient care)... what are you to do? What can our system (a bit too busy off making million-dollar J-DAMS for war) do?
The effing U.S. is a war machine, brother--it's in a blood. So I don't think anybody is going this model marked by truly twiste priorities (IN MY OPINION).
It there falls upon the sufferer, and goddamnit to hell, you know - sometimes we lose them.