Attention is a Filter, Not a Spotlight: Rethinking Suicide Prevention

Attention is a filter, not a spotlight.

(Hendrick, 2025, citing Broadbent, 1958).

Understanding the Importance of Focus

We may ask ourselves if we are looking at what truly matters. Are we mindfully noticing what is important, or are we getting pulled away? Are we distracted by shiny objects, as my friend Lauren Taylor would call them? When it comes to mental health and education, we must filter out the frivolous and focus intentionally. Decision-makers supporting future generations must develop filters as we press forward on critical issues—such as suicide.

With the right support, we can each develop an internal instrument that allows us to attune to individuals as they stand before us—not as imagined through the fog of irrelevant news bites, slogans, and our varied thoughts. Instead, we can attend to others as they are: living, feeling, needing, and experiencing.

Our internal instrument does not emerge spontaneously. It develops through knowledge, training, refinement, and practice.

• Knowledge provides a framework for understanding human development and health.

• Training and refinement allow us to discern, filtering out pseudoscientific and personal noise.

• Practice enables us to apply these skills consistently in dynamic, real-world interactions and policy decisions.

  
  

The Noise Surrounding Suicide Prevention

As Suicide Prevention Month concludes, it is time to educate ourselves and filter out the noise: the pseudoscientific ideas, false promises, conflicts of interest, invalid questionnaires, and performative gestures that masquerade as suicide prevention. Much of what is labeled suicide prevention nowadays is more about optics than substance. We should ask: Do we, as a culture, truly want to impact suicide rates?

I look at various programs and policies in schools across the U.S. and ask, “Do we genuinely want to do good for our kids and society's future?” If the answer is “yes,” and if we as a society want to lower suicide rates, we must begin by improving our internal filters. This will help us better attend to society-wide mental health needs and foster wellness. Before outlining what is needed to improve young people's outlook and reduce suffering related to suicides, let’s review the dominant approach.

Current Approaches to Suicide Prevention

The current path to lowering suicide rates often involves identifying individuals who are “at risk.” This is typically done through universally applied screeners that claim to detect suicidal ideation or future risk. However, these tools have poor predictive validity, meaning they do not reliably identify who will ultimately take their lives. These screeners are often deployed repeatedly (Badre & Compton, 2023). They can create a false sense of security. They neither reliably prevent suicide nor address the conditions that may lead to suicide, such as neglect, abuse, bullying, unmet relational, educational, or neurodevelopmental needs, hopelessness, despair, and detachment. As Badre and Compton argue, so-called "suicide prevention" is not really prevention—it is surveillance.

Universally implemented school suicide prevention programs resemble a brother’s keeper scenario crossed with a Lifetime movie: watch films about teens who have self-harmed, look out for others resembling these characters, and tell someone.

Anyone who has lost someone to suicide knows the first knee-jerk reaction is to feel responsible, regardless of their power or role. Those of us in the clinical space hypothesize that this is a way of trying to manage feelings of control amidst uncontrollable circumstances. With this common response to the aftermath of suicide, it seems disconcerting that we could be prematurely giving kids the perspective that they are responsible for their peers’ lives through bystander interventions. This seems developmentally inappropriate. If there is any chance that kids could experience peer suicide, then there may be a humanitarian argument against programming that emphasizes the protective role of peers in keeping other teens alive.

Outcomes for these so-called “suicide prevention” programs are often measured based on referrals to the counselor's office following this stressful programming. Such outcome measurement is questionable, at best.

It is well known that prevention programs where the problem is discussed in detail—or excessively—lack preventative power. Well-considered prevention tends to be proactive and strength-focused, rather than problem-focused or clinically-focused.

In recent years, I’ve found in clinical practice that the least useful questions and interventions to engage with teens expressing suicidal ideation are the standard suicide screening questions. While I felt compelled to include them due to standard practice, the truly useful questions from the perspective of actual care look very different. The useful questions I ask are delivered with compassion and stem from clinical experience, early training in neuropsychological evaluations, and multidisciplinary opportunities to reflect on wellness with Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) research scientists and students. The lines of questioning I use focus on the issues maintaining the patient’s suffering. Tackling those. The related recommendations to medical providers involve addressing the drivers of chronic and severe stress—chronic gut issues, nutritional deficiencies (and previous testing to identify those), food sensitivities, sensory overload, unmet learning needs, insufficient exercise, poor sleep, and what is lacking in their lives or creating discontentment (discovered through the “miracle question”). These lines of inquiry are rarely explored in schools or private agencies when suicidal risk is present. Instead, kids tend to be repeatedly asked about their intention to kill themselves, specific plans, and—only if they’re lucky—reasons they may want to live. But that’s often the extent of it.

The Role of Educators and Policymakers

As I reflect on the status of suicide prevention, it’s clear that not only educators and parents, but also policymakers must cultivate discernment between talking about suicide and preventing it. Their decisions—about funding, mandates, and institutional priorities—shape the environments in which children live and learn. These decisions influence whether people develop into contributing members of society or become hopeless, despairing, and ineffective. When policy is built on pseudoscience, reactive protocols, invalid screening tools, or the whims of survivors, it risks reinforcing harm under the guise of care. True leadership requires filtering out what is performative or potentially damaging and investing in what is developmentally protective for our futures. True prevention is primary prevention—and that is not just a clinical stance; it is a legislative one.

Are Survivors' Voices Over-shaping Policy?

The aftermath of suicide is brutal. It is final. There is no going back. Exploring the path that led to it can open us up to a sense of regret or feelings of guilt. Since surviving relatives and friends of someone who completed suicide are themselves vulnerable and at risk, people often try to soothe and placate survivors. When that soothing and placating encroaches into policy, we may want to pause and reflect. At some point, we have to ask ourselves if we want to keep survivors comfortable or tackle the public health problem of suicide. These two objectives may sometimes be in opposition to each other.

Primary prevention can protect the conditions that allow children to develop healthy brains, resilient minds and bodies, and meaningful relationships. It means building lives buffered against severe and unbearable despair—not just reacting to it once it surfaces. It isn’t about surveilling or chasing down despair. It isn’t about providing short-lived comfort. It is about creating depth, meaning, agency, and purpose for all.

Championing Primary Prevention: The Personal and Professional Perspective

Who am I to make such bold statements? Who am I to potentially bench survivors if their needs interfere with critical public health initiatives that could save lives? Why do I care about prevention? What is the relevance to me? When it comes to suicide, I speak from personal and professional experience. My perspective is shaped by encountering many kids in deep despair during 22 years of combined pre- and post-licensure experience. I have repeatedly observed systems in need of reform—systems that obviously make things worse for kids. I also have lived experience. Specifically, I survived gun violence and witnessed the suicide of a family member when I was 20 years old. Such experiences have a profound impact. If my insights aren’t helpful to actual prevention efforts, then, as I call for a better filter and focus on the public health agenda, if my voice isn’t helpful for saving lives, then feel free to ignore me.

But here are my questions:

Can we not have a filter that allows us to face down our failures as a society? Aren’t we just a little braver than we seem? Or will we keep looking at the shiny objects like slogans, memorials, walks, and ribbons, all of which may distract from true prevention?

My life story informs my fearless commitment to primary suicide prevention—not just as a theoretical ideal, but as a moral imperative. I hold many questions born out of my life experience. For example, I often wonder if people genuinely think suicide just comes out of nowhere. Do they believe that those who commit suicide tend to have deeply connected, authentic, healthy lives with a sense of purpose, balanced stress, a sense of agency, and peace with the world when they decide to leave this world? I believe suicide is usually caused by not just one event or stressor, but a chain of events, many of which are preventable.

Surviving relatives, in their grief, may want to tell sentimental or idealistic stories, and to say something else would seem hurtful, if not taboo. I am one of those family members, and I urge others to stop running away from humanity's failings so that we can actually do better. Family survivors must courageously compel society to stop placating us and start saving lives. To do that, we must confront the truth, no matter how uncomfortable, and then go upstream.

Can we filter out the noise and look at the things that long precede suicide? When someone commits suicide, even when the surviving relatives and community may not want to talk about the dark side, there is usually a story of deep suffering or a major medical, neurological, developmental, or systemic issue. Sometimes, there is a lack of nurturance or boundaries leading to impulsive behaviors such as substance use, which deepens suffering.

With many years of clinical experience, I believe I was fortunate not to re-experience suicide exposure in my clinical work. Over many years of practice, there were very few instances where I needed to lean on professional authority to maintain someone’s safety. Why so few? My life developed a relational capacity shaped through human suffering. That capacity can contain people in distress. More importantly, I was usually getting ahead of things: focusing on connection and patients' strengths. When I did need to intervene for safety reasons, it was in response to a patient’s clear and compounding risk factors—systems (e.g., families or schools) failing to meet foundational needs, impulsivity, self-injury, suicidal ideation and plans, impaired mental status, and substance use. My clinical decisions also emerged from reflective processes in supervision and consultation.

While some might assume lived experience always clouds judgment, I’ve found the opposite to be true. When paired with courage, knowledge, and disciplined reflection, experience can sharpen perception. It deepens discernment. It allows professionals to function with greater knowledge, clarity, and empathy—not less. When we have experience, courageously, we may recognize circumstances that lead to death and dying.

A Case for True Prevention: Meeting Foundational Needs Such as Literacy

It is no accident that my career has repeatedly returned to prevention—to addressing the source of suffering before it metastasizes. I understand the powerlessness we’re destined to experience if we don’t go far enough upstream. As I’ve said, last-ditch efforts aren’t predictably useful. Over time, I’ve learned in clinical practice that when foundational needs are met, they reliably lead to contentment, meaning, and even joy. We can avoid many tragedies by addressing the risks that lead to them. Take literacy, for example. When a child’s literacy needs are met, they experience academic success, which fosters self-efficacy and reduces future stress (Child Mind Institute, 2023). These children tend to be happier. They receive positive feedback from peers and adults, which bolsters self-esteem (American Psychological Association, n.d.). Success in school ignites excitement about future goals. Others begin to expect great things from them. They become increasingly motivated, with a forward-looking, optimistic orientation.

When literacy needs are neglected, the trajectory shifts. These children often develop learned helplessness as they repeatedly attempt—and fail—to succeed in the very setting they inhabit for 30 hours a week. They experience chronic stress, eroded academic esteem, and a growing sense of despair. Isolation and loneliness follow (Child Mind Institute, 2023; Children Rising, 2023). If these needs are not met by high school, self-medication may follow with illicit drugs. In extreme cases, we see suicide notes with spelling errors—haunting evidence of how literacy failure intersects with hopelessness. Individuals with learning disabilities are disproportionately underemployed and imprisoned. The life circumstances that follow are not just difficult—they are often devastating.

Heads UP! Surf's UP for Prevention!

So how do we improve the judgment of those shaping public health, education, and schooling as it pertains to suicidality? Can we bottle my hard-fought wisdom and deliver it to those on the ground and in policy rooms? Can it be replicated? Can discernment be taught without the kind of suffering and extensive training I experienced?

The short answer is yes.

Through the Surf’s UP Method®️, adults are trained to build and tune their instrument—to filter out distraction, internal noise, and reactive judgments. They learn to attend to a child's words, actions, and emotions with clarity and care. But Surf’s UP goes far beyond communication skills. It teaches adults to recognize the physical and emotional signals that often mask or predict later mental health challenges—chronic stress, sleep disruption, sensory dysregulation, relational withdrawal. It equips adults to support kids’ emotional capacity and relational health in everyday interactions. It gets to the basics: literacy, sleep, exercise, and more.

Surf’s UP Method®️ instructors empower PreK–12 educators to filter in two directions. First, since pseudoscience has overtaken schools, we train educational professionals to discern—distinguishing between pseudoscience and evidence-based principles. Educators learn to reject reactive protocols, invalid screeners, and adult-centric myths in favor of evidence-based practices rooted in human development.

Second, Surf’s UP teaches educators to filter their own internal noise—the habits, biases, and interpretations that distort perception. They learn to recognize when their responses are about the child—and when they are more about themselves. This dual clarity allows them to respond with intention, not impulse. Surf’s UP becomes not just a method, but a movement toward a compassionate and ethical approach to kids. With a clear lens on development and learning, educators tune into what matters and let go of judgments rooted in internal noise. This clarity is essential, especially when teachers are vulnerable to being swept into personal interpretations or worries. Without a proper filter, it becomes difficult to perceive the student as they truly are—and for students to grow through those interactions.

Frameworks, by design, serve as filters. They reduce cognitive clutter and sharpen attention. Surf’s UP provides this structure by distinguishing what supports emotional development and human health from what impedes it. Educators learn to focus on those variables—external and internal—and release what distracts or distorts.

Surf’s UP is not just a pedagogical shift. It is a public health imperative. When educators refine their instrument—when they learn to see children as they truly are—they create environments where students feel accurately seen. That perception is protective. That perception is powerful.

As we close out this month, let us stop confusing awareness with prevention. Let us stop offering false hope through symbolic gestures and reactive protocols pushed out by the uneducated, naive, or misguided individuals in power. Let us start investing in the real work: primary prevention. Let’s start attending to kids. Every child deserves a life built on connection, clarity, and contribution—not just survival.

References

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Students experiencing low self-esteem or low perceptions of competence. https://www.apa.org/ed/schools/primer/self-esteem

Badre, N., & Compton, J. (2023). The cult of suicide risk assessment: How screening tools became a substitute for care. Journal of Critical Mental Health, 12(3), 45–62.

Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Pergamon Press.

Child Mind Institute. (2023, October 17). The 2023 Children’s Mental Health Report: Evidence-Based Reading Instruction and Educational Equity. https://childmind.org/blog/the-2023-childrens-mental-health-report-evidence-based-reading-instruction-and-educational-equity/

Children Rising. (2023, August 10). Reading for Life: The Impact of Child Literacy on Health Outcomes. https://www.children-rising.org/2023/08/10/reading-for-life-the-impact-of-child-literacy-on-health-outcomes/

Hendrick, C. (2025, September 28). Attention is a filter, not a spotlight Social media post]. X. [https://x.com/carlhendrick/status/1708200000000000000

National Institute of Mental Health. (2023). Suicide prevention: Screening and intervention strategies. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/suicide-prevention