Injustice after death: why exposing suicide notes is a violation of the departed

Responsible reporting on suicide requires sensitivity and ethical consideration beyond headlines 

Research shows that sensationalising suicide can lead to copycat suicides, especially when detailed methods or emotional notes are shared

Publishing suicide notes violates the privacy rights of the departed and their grieving families

Responsible reporting should prioritise suicide prevention over sensationalising personal tragedy

A suicide note is not written for headlines. It is a raw, unfiltered message—often addressed to loved ones, not to journalists.

Every journalist in Sri Lanka knows that some stories are harder to tell than others. Like reporting on suicide. It requires sensitivity, restraint, and a deep awareness of the consequences, especially when it involves sharing something as intimate as a suicide note.
Yet, across newsrooms in Sri Lanka and beyond, a troubling practice persists: the publication and broadcasting of suicide notes after someone has died by suicide. We justify it as “giving the public the full story,” or even as a cautionary tale. But one has to pause and ask a question: would one publish this note if the person had survived?
The answer is no. Almost always.
That inconsistency should unsettle us.

A Private Letter, Not a Public Document
A suicide note is not written for headlines. It is a raw, unfiltered message—often addressed to loved ones, not to media personnel. It is the last intimate communication of that person. When we take that private communication and place it in the public domain without consent, we violate a fundamental ethical principle: the right to privacy! Remember, the right to privacy does not vanish with death.
Let us consider a scenario where a person survives a suicide attempt. We would not publish their note, right? Why? Because the author is alive to object, and we recognise it as an intrusion. Perhaps, a potential unnecessary legal battle.
Let us consider a scenario where someone leaves a deeply personal letter for their family before their last moments. We would not publish their personal letter, unless they were a public figure, and the letter has a clear public relevance. Why? Because it is a deeply private personal communication. 
Now think of a diary entry of somebody who revealed private despair. We somehow stumbled upon this diary entry. We would definitely treat it with respect, not as fodder for circulation among our friends.
But, when the words are penned in finality, we treat them differently. Why?

The Hypocrisy of Selective Ethics
The uncomfortable truth is that publishing suicide notes is only “acceptable” to some because the author cannot protest. This is not journalism—it is exploitation. We would never intrude this way on a living person’s private grief, so why do we feel entitled to do so once they are gone?
Some might argue: “But the public has a right to know”. Do they? Unless the note reveals something of legitimate public interest (e.g., evidence of a crime or systemic injustice), it is not news—it is voyeurism. Suicide is a private tragedy, not a spectacle.
Others might say: “It raises awareness”. But research shows that sensationalising suicide can lead to copycat suicides, especially when detailed methods or emotional notes are shared. The report of the 1996 Presidential Task Force on Suicide Prevention in Sri Lanka thoroughly recommended that it should not be done. The World Health Organisation (WHO) and local and global journalism ethics bodies explicitly warn against this. Awareness can be achieved without violating the departed. Awareness can be achieved without sensationalising the suicide. Awareness can be achieved without promoting suicide culture.

The Ripple Effect of Betrayal
What we often forget is that suicide does not just affect one person—it devastates families, friends, and communities. When we publish a suicide note, we:  Rob the family of their right to grieve privately.  That note may have been meant for them, not for strangers to dissect and  speculate.Reduce a family’s pain to clickbait.  The note becomes a curiosity rather than what it truly is: a private  communication.Risk-promoting copycat suicide.  This is a well-known, highly unfortunate negative effect. Risk-promoting suicide culture in general. The  Presidential Task Force clearly identified that sensationalising suicide  reporting creates a culture that promotes suicide as an effective means to  solve problems in life.  
Would we want our last words placed in the public domain without permission?

A Call for Reflection, Not Blame
This is not about shaming journalists. It is about recognising a blind spot. Many of us have done this without malice, believing it was part of the story. But now that we see the harm—the ethical inconsistency, the violation of privacy, the potential for contagion—we must do better.
Think before writing a news piece on a suicide. Ask:  “What am I going to write now? Don’t let yourself run the autopilot  mode”.Pause before publishing.  Ask: “Is this note truly necessary for public understanding, or am I  intruding on grief?”End promoting suicide.  Report on suicide with care—highlight prevention, resources, and avoid  sensationalising.  
Journalism is a powerful profession. With that power comes responsibility—not just to inform, but to protect, dignify, and honour. A suicide note is not ours to share. It belongs to the person who wrote it and their loved ones.
Let’s ensure that, in our pursuit of truth, we do not betray the very people we seek to document.
The writer is a Senior Lecturer and  Consultant Psychiatrist