Lethal Suicide Deniers

MD Media/AdobeStock

CLINICAL REFLECTIONS

Suicide risk assessment is a cornerstone of mental health practice, yet clinicians frequently encounter a tragic paradox: patients who die by suicide shortly after explicitly denying suicidal ideation. This clinical challenge complicates risk stratification, undermines therapeutic trust, and exposes providers and institutions to significant clinical and forensic liability. Current terminology does not adequately classify this phenomenon, hindering targeted research and the development of specific intervention strategies. We propose the formal categorization of lethal suicide denier (LSD), defined as patients who die by suicide within 24 hours of an explicit denial of suicidal intent during a clinical assessment. This article will define the LSD category, explore its distinct clinical subtypes based on underlying mechanisms, discuss the profound implications for clinical practice and forensic evaluation, and argue for its necessity in advancing the field of suicidology beyond its current limitations.

The Limits of Expressed Ideation

In recent decades, the field of suicidology has pursued highly aspirational endeavors, advocating for "zero-suicide" policies¹ and universal screenings, alongside the standardization of terminology.^2,3 This standardization has brought much-needed clarity to terms like suicidal ideation (the desire to end one's life) and suicide attempt (self-injurious behavior with intent to die). While laudable, these efforts have inadvertently reinforced a clinical paradigm that often over-relies on a patient's self-report of suicidal intent. The reality, as a seasoned clinician in a hospital, clinic, or correctional facility knows, is that some of the most tragic outcomes occur after a patient has been assessed, deemed to be at low risk based on their own denial of suicidality, and subsequently dies by suicide.

This occurrence represents a unique and devastating moment. It leaves treatment teams, families, and legal systems grappling with an unforeseeable tragedy. The absence of a specific term for this population renders it unclassified, and therefore an unstudied phenomenon. By defining and categorizing these individuals, we can begin to systematically investigate the prevalence, mechanisms, and potential mitigating strategies for this population, moving beyond the inherent limitations of assessments that depend on patient disclosure. This is not merely an academic exercise; it is a necessary step to address a recurring clinical dilemma that lies at the intersection of patient autonomy, clinical responsibility, and forensic reality.

Defining LSD

We define LSD as patients who die by suicide within 24 hours of a clinical assessment in which they explicitly denied suicidal ideation, intent, or plans. This definition is intentionally narrow to establish a clear, researchable, and clinically practical category. It is crucial to distinguish the LSD phenomenon from other related clinical presentations:

• Conscious deceivers: We distinguish LSD from cases involving clear, premeditated deception. The so-called "smiling suicide," who feels a sense of peace after making a resolute decision to die and intentionally misleads clinicians to achieve their goal, represents a different clinical entity—the determined-deceitful patient. While the outward presentation may be similar, the LSD framework focuses on cases where a rapid and genuine shift in mental state, rather than long-held, conscious deceit, is the more probable explanation. The challenge of the sophisticated, determined-deceitful patient, often familiar with psychiatric criteria, is a related but separate problem.
• Denial of past behavior: The LSD category is also distinct from a patient's intentional denial or minimization of a history of self-harm or other risk factors. While a patient's inaccurate reporting of their history is a clinically significant issue that complicates risk assessment, LSD is specifically concerned with the denial of current and imminent intent proximal to the act.
• Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) and ambiguous acts: The definition focuses on acts with clear lethal intent. It excludes NSSI, where the intent is to alleviate emotional pain rather than to die. It also sets aside ambiguous cases, such as an opioid user's fatal overdose after detoxification, unless there is collateral evidence of suicidal intent. While these are critical areas of study, the LSD category is meant to capture the most acute paradox: the explicit denial of intent followed by a completed suicide.

The 24-hour timeframe is proposed as a practical starting point, capturing the most immediate and challenging cases where the assessment and the outcome are in starkest contrast. This timeframe could be expanded in future research as our understanding of the phenomenon's temporal dynamics grows.

Clinical Subtypes of Lethal Suicide Deniers

Our combined forensic and clinical experience, supported by existing literature, suggests that LSD is not a monolithic event. Rather, it appears to encompass several distinct etiological pathways. Understanding these subtypes is essential for moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach to risk assessment and toward targeted interventions.

• The devastating communication subtype: This group includes patients who are stable and genuinely nonsuicidal at the time of assessment but subsequently receive unforeseen and overwhelmingly negative news. Examples are manifold: learning a final legal appeal has been denied, an unexpected and brutal romantic or family rejection, public shaming via media or social media, or a credible threat from others. This aligns with interpersonal theories of suicide, which posit that thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness are central to the desire for suicide.⁴ The clinician, unaware of this impending precipitant, conducts an assessment that is accurate in that moment. The subsequent suicide is a catastrophic reaction to an acute, intervening psychosocial event,⁵ not a failure of the initial assessment's accuracy.
• The impulsive subtype: A significant body of research indicates that the transition from suicidal thought to action can be terrifyingly rapid. One study of nearly lethal suicide attempt survivors found that 47.6% reported the time from the first thought of suicide to the attempt was 10 minutes or less.⁶ These patients may be genuinely non-suicidal during their assessment but possess underlying traits of impulsivity, poor emotional regulation, and deficits in problem-solving. They act on a sudden, overwhelming wave of psychic pain, often triggered by a seemingly minor stressor or an internal emotional shift. Their denial of suicidality is truthful at the time of assessment because the lethal impulse has not yet coalesced.
• The intoxication-mediated subtype: This group includes individuals who become acutely intoxicated after an evaluation. While sober, they may have been able to manage distressing thoughts. However, substance use, particularly alcohol, acts as a catalyst, increasing depression and aggression while impairing judgment—a phenomenon sometimes termed "alcoholic myopia."⁷ This disinhibition can lead to morbid rumination and impulsive self-destructive actions that were not present or prominent just hours earlier.
• The psychotic subtype: This subtype includes patients with serious mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia or delusional disorders, whose symptoms are not severe enough at the time and present with a facade of normality or good control. They may successfully mask or deny underlying psychotic symptoms, particularly command hallucinations to self-harm, which are a known risk factor for suicide [8]. Subsequently, an unpredictable escalation in these symptoms can lead to a delusion-driven suicide. The patient wasn’t lying during the assessment; rather, the internal pressure of the psychosis was sub-threshold, only to become overwhelmingly compelling shortly thereafter.
• The agitated depression/mixed state subtype: This often-missed group suffers from a state of intense inner turmoil, psychic pain, and akathisia, which may not be outwardly apparent. Research has identified that severe anxiety, panic attacks, and anhedonia were more predictive of imminent suicide than depressive mood alone.⁹ More recent work confirms that depressive mixed states, characterized by this agitated, painful energy, represent a period of particularly high suicide risk.¹⁰ These individuals may deny "sadness" or "depression" in the classic sense, and even deny specific suicidal plans, because their state is one of chaotic, painful energy without a clear cognitive component. The suicide is an impulsive escape from this intolerable inner state.

Case Vignette

“Mr Ray” is a 35-year-old trans man with a history of multiple incarcerations, now facing a lengthy prison sentence. He has a documented history of self-harm and has received psychiatric treatment for endorsed depression and psychosis. However, for 30 consecutive days, he consistently denies suicidality during more than 60 documented checks. Following this period of consistent denial, he dies by hanging. A later investigation reveals that shortly before his death, his attorney called with a negative update on his case—a classic example of a devastating communication. The clinical team, unaware of this precipitant, provided care that we believe met the standard, yet the tragic outcome occurred. This case encapsulates a subtype of LSD, where the clinical assessment was likely accurate at the time it was performed.

Clinical and Forensic Implications

The formal recognition of LSD has several critical, real-world implications:

• For forensic evaluation: The LSD concept is vital in the context of malpractice or civil rights litigation. It provides a clinical framework to explain to triers of fact that a suicide following a denial is not prima facie evidence of negligence. It allows an expert to articulate that the standard of care may have been met at the time of assessment and that subsequent events or a rapid, unpredictable internal shift led to the outcome. This helps to mitigate a defensive practice of medicine, where fear of litigation leads to overly restrictive interventions that can be iatrogenic and violate patient rights. It directly confronts the problem of "hindsight bias," which can pervasively and unfairly color the legal review of suicide cases.^11,12
• For clinical practice: It suggests a shift in risk assessment. It validates that a clinician's gut feeling or sense of unease has a place, even in the face of patient denial. It argues for moving beyond a simple checklist of static risk factors and patient self-report toward a more dynamic assessment that considers underlying vulnerabilities: impulsivity, emotional regulation skills, substance use patterns, and the potential for acute stressors. Interventions like safety planning must evolve to address this reality, perhaps by helping patients identify the signs of an impending impulsive crisis and creating a plan to manage that specific moment of risk, rather than just asking about persistent ideation.
• For research: The LSD category provides a clear, definable target for research. We can begin to study its prevalence, identify more precise risk factors for its various subtypes (eg, neurobiological markers of impulsivity), and test targeted interventions. For example, could specific psychotherapies improve distress tolerance in the impulsive subtype? Could real-time mood monitoring help identify patients entering a high-risk state? Without a formal category, this vital research remains unfocused.

Concluding Thoughts: Facing a Painful Reality

The pursuit of "zero suicide" could be a noble goal.¹ However, to make genuine progress, we must be brutally honest about the challenges and limitations we face. The phenomenon of LSD proves that even when help is immediately available and directly offered, some suicides will not be prevented by inquiry alone. The patient's denial, which may be genuine in the moment, creates a formidable barrier to intervention.

Acknowledging the existence of LSD is not an admission of defeat; it is a call for greater sophistication in our clinical and systemic approach. It pushes us to understand and account for the powerful role of impulsivity, acute psychosocial stressors, and rapidly changing mental states in the final pathway to suicide. For the clinician on the front lines, it can provide a rationale for taking further action—such as increasing the level of observation, or engaging family—based on a holistic assessment of dynamic risk factors, rather than being solely tethered to a patient's denial. Alternatively, understanding of LSD may better explain that appropriate risk assessment may still be followed by a fatal event.

The LSD concept forces us to confront the difficult ethical tension between patient autonomy and clinical paternalism. In the face of a patient's denial but significant objective risk factors, how far should a clinician go? The LSD framework does not provide an easy answer, but it correctly frames the question. It argues that in the face of real ignorance about the immediate future, clinical judgment about a patient's underlying vulnerability cannot be entirely obscured by a patient's self-report or by the risk of a lawsuit.¹¹

By formally categorizing LSD, we create the language to study, discuss, and ultimately address one of the most tragic and challenging presentations in clinical practice. It is a necessary, if painful, step toward a more nuanced understanding of suicide and a more effective, realistic strategy for its prevention.

Dr Abrams is a forensic psychiatrist and attorney in San Diego. He is an expert in addiction, behavioral toxicology, psychopharmacology, and correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego. Dr Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. His upcoming textbook of psychiatry is available on Amazon. Dr Compton is a member of the psychiatry faculty at the University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research.

References

1. Labouliere CD, Vasan P, Kramer A, et al. “Zero suicide”–a model for reducing suicide in United States behavioral healthcare. Suicidologi. 2018;23(1):22-30.

2. Silverman MM, Berman AL, Sanddal ND, et al. Rebuilding the tower of Babel: a revised nomenclature for the study of suicide and suicidal behaviors. Part 1: background, rationale, and methodology. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2007;37(3):248-263.

3. Posner K, Oquendo MA, Gould M, et al. Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA): classification of suicidal events in the FDA’s pediatric suicidal risk analysis of antidepressants. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(7):1035-1043.

4. Joiner TE. Why People Die by Suicide. Harvard University Press; 2005.

5. Qin P, Agerbo E, Mortensen PB. Suicide risk in relation to socioeconomic, demographic, psychiatric, and familial factors: a national register-based study of all suicides in Denmark, 1981–1997. Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160(4):765-772.

6. Deisenhammer EA, Ing CM, Strauss R, et al. The duration of the suicidal process: how much time is left for intervention? J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70(1):19-24.

7. Steele CM, Josephs RA. Alcohol myopia: its prized and dangerous effects. American Psychologist. 1990;45(8):921-933.

8. Wong Z, Öngür D, Cohen B, et al. Command hallucinations and clinical characteristics of suicidality in patients with psychotic spectrum disorders. Compr Psychiatry. 2013;54(6):611-617.

9. Fawcett J, Scheftner WA, Fogg L, et al. Time-related predictors of suicide in major affective disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 1990;147(9):1189-1194.

10. Akiskal HS, Benazzi F. Psychopathologic correlates of suicidal ideation in major depressive outpatients: is it all due to unrecognized (bipolar) depressive mixed states? Psychopathology. 2005;38(5):273-280.

11. LeBourgeois HW, Pinals DA, Williams V, Appelbaum PS. Hindsight bias among psychiatrists. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2007;35(1):67.

12. Large M, Ryan CJ, Callaghan S. Hindsight bias and the overestimation of suicide risk in expert testimony. The Psychiatrist. 2012;36(6):236-237.