"Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind" by Edwin S. Shneidman
First read: April 2022, 3 stars.
Second read: April 2024, 4 stars.
In spite of his vast amount of experience, Shneidman failed to understand Arthur's firsthand experience completely. This is obvious from his letter to Arthur's mother in the last chapter:
"The early Freudians (around 1910) saw suicide primarily as hostility toward the parents: It appeared to them that in assuaging his own desperate need to stop the unbearable psychological pain, the suicidal person, coincidentally at least, broke his mother’s heart. We see that Arthur, for all his wit, cannot escape inflicting collateral damage on his family. Part of our discomfort in this case has to do with our puzzlement over how he could be so thoughtless. The answer, I believe, lies in the constriction, the concentration, the tunneling of vision, the pathological narrowing and focus on the Self that is a usual part of the suicidal state."
Here, Shneidman doesn't consider that if committing suicide is shifting the pain to the relatives, then staying alive is bearing the pain only to make the relatives satisfied. If suicide is being selfish, as he seems to think, then asking a relative to stay alive can be selfish in the same way.
"As a psychotherapist I have an ingrained responsibility to be empathic, to resonate to Arthur’s private psychological pain, and to reaffirm his right to end his suffering. But at the same time, in this same role, I am aware of his towering narcissism, his view that his suffering is somehow unique, that he is special among men—a kind of malignant grandiosity that asserts that no one has ever had it as bad as he has. This almost delusional greatness-of-my-pain seems to be present in many suicidal people."
Blaming Arthur for being narrow-minded and breaking her mother's heart?! Well, it seems to me that Shneidman did this partly because of his own biases as a father. Blaming Arthur for not being strong enough to endure "what has happened to many"?! To call Arthur's pain "one of the many" and "not unique"?! Having a shared pain and sorrow with many other people doesn't necessarily reduce the amount of suffering, especially if your distress tolerance limits are different from them. I think Shneidman let himself to blame Arthur only after his death. Else, if he showed such an unempathetic look towards Arthur, he might have run away from the office.
In my opinion, relatives' overemphasis on biologic essence of Arthur's depression comes from their denial of the possibility that they could somehow help him psychologically but they didn't. Calling him "biologically cursed" is somehow closing the issue before completely analyzing it. However, I don't deny the effectiveness of ECT and other biological methods in his case. I disagree with seeing all the roots of his depression in his biology because there were at least some triggers which exacerbated his depression. For example, being bullied by his brother was an example of "Social defeat stress" which exists in animal studies and is related with different negative psychiatric, cardiovascular, and other types of consequences.
After all, this book is a good example of psychological autopsy by providing narratives from different relatives, friends, psychotherapist and psychiatrist of the patient. Also, there are some chapters in which some professionals who were colleagues of Shneidman discussed the case. As Shneidman said, the book brought a Rashomon-type look at the case of Arthur. By reading it after 2 years, the value of it became more bolded in my eyes.