 |
| Chad Varah, founder of The Samaritans (Photograph downloaded from Wikipedia) |
As I have already written in a previous post (which you can read here) one of the things I have been doing with my time recently is to answer the telephone for The Samaritans, an organisation that provides a free listening service for people who are unhappy, and are suffering from depression or desperation, many of whom might be on the verge of committing suicide.
One thing I learned was that we are not supposed to use the phrase “commit suicide” when doing a Samaritans shift. (Each lasts three hours and you are expected to do one a week.) Since suicide was decriminalised in 1961, the phrase has gone out of fashion and we are meant to say something like “end - or take - your own life” instead.
This seems like the ultimate euphemism to me. “Suicide” is obviously a word that cannot be avoided when talking about taking your own life and “commit” is a simple English word which basically means “do”. If you cannot talk about doing something which, virtually by definition, you are talking about as a Samaritan, then we have come to a pretty pass.
However, rather than making a fuss about wokeness of political correctness, I have quietly shelved the phrase and use ones that are considered more acceptable these days. Chad Varah, who founded The Samaritans in the year I was born – 1953 – never shied away from saying “commit suicide” but I will obey the dictates of head office and drop it now for good.
However, I have my doubts about the issue of confidentiality which is paramount for all Samaritans. Although I can say that I am a Samaritan, I cannot write about particular people I have talked to and certainly will not boast that I persuaded Charles not to end his life or talked Clarissa into thinking that life was worthwhile after all. (Their names are invented by the way.)
Under the Samaritans code of confidentiality, conversations remain secret between the caller and the listener. It helps people to open up if they know that I will not blab about them to someone else after I have put down the phone. I debrief at the end of each session so a Samaritans leader hears what I have to say but then I shred my notes and go my way.
Yet confidentiality can come into conflict with safeguarding, the duty to protect people from sexual exploitation. If a caller tells me that they have raped their daughter (God forbid) then I have to warn them that I will need to report this to the authorities. There is no need for a caller to identify themselves, however, so there is little Samaritans can do if they refuse.
The whole issue of safeguarding has an element of covering your back, showing that you will reveal the details of a terrible crime without forcing the criminal to identify themselves. This means that, by keeping his (usually) identity secret, he can unburden himself without having to face the legal consequences of his confession. You cannot charge if you cannot identify.
There is a contrast in the degrees of confidentiality offered by a Samaritan and a Roman Catholic priest in the confessional. The sanctity of the confessional is absolute as is demonstrated by a Catholic priest here So you could confess to being the Yorkshire Ripper and not be betrayed by the priest as you are talking to him (always) in total confidence.
The same degree of absolute confidentiality does not apply to Samaritans. Not only does the safeguarding policy exist to protect children and other vulnerable people, but Samaritans will obey a court order to reveal the identity of a criminal. If I am “required by law” my duty of confidentiality can be suspended. Not so for a Roman Catholic priest.
This actually happened when a killer confessed to his crime to Samaritans no less than forty five times. The forty sixth listener, however, felt that he could not keep the secret and told the police who then apprehended the killer with the co-operation of the local branch. They effectively caved whereas a priest would have held out and kept the confession confidential.
Which is the correct approach? To maintain total confidentiality so that people can feel safe in confessing and unburden themselves or to put the protection of an innocent person first? This is an extremely difficult question to answer and I will probably be accused of hedging my bets when I say that each approach is probably right for the organisation concerned.
Whether you agree with the premise or not, a church will distinguish between a crime, which society judges and punishes you for, and a sin, which may be perfectly legal but goes against what God allows. Being unfaithful to a spouse is not a punishable crime but it is wrong in the eyes of the church and should be owned up to as a sin in the confessional.
Although it was founded by a priest, The Samaritans is a secular organisation and volunteers are forbidden from preaching the gospel to callers, who do not want to hear that God loves them, even (especially) if nobody else does. The Samaritans are concerned with life on earth and what happens in Heaven (or Hell) is not going to be uppermost in their minds.
For believers, however, God is the ultimate judge. They are released from the confessional with the words, “Go and sin no more”. Of course, people go on sinning (and confessing) but you have owned up to what you have done to God and can expect absolution from Him. What that means to society is not the concern of the person hearing your confession.
The Samaritans cannot expect to play this get out of jail free card. They have to think of the loved ones of a child who has been abused or killed and may be obliged to act in such a way that at least seems to be protecting the child from further abuse – or even worse. Therefore they impose limits on confidentiality so as not to be complicit in harming innocent people.
Remember this if you want to call The Samaritans to make a confession of having killed or abused someone. A Roman Catholic priest will offer you a greater degree of confidentiality so you may be better off telling all to him than to a secular Samaritan. They do not offer total secrecy and you could argue that, if confidentiality is not absolute, it is absent.
Edwin Lerner
My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com
