Suicide, Sniper and the rest of us
You click the headline and read the story, it has become familiar now. Another undergraduate has taken his life and left a sad suicide note, just like the other young man a few weeks ago.
Your mind traces the similarities in these two recent stories and earlier ones and you notice that beyond the hopelessness these departed ones shared, they all used the same poison to end their lives. Like you, many have noticed that the growing hopelessness among young people has led to the increasing use of Sniper as a suicide poison, and have called for a ban of the product.
The Case Against Sniper
In reality, a lot of those calling for Sniper to be banned have no problems with the product itself. The call is mostly out of kindness and a desire to encourage a pragmatic approach in tackling the public health challenge that suicide is. In making a case for the ban, a study by the Suicide Research and Prevention Initiative conducted in Lagos State University is often cited, the study found that out of 66 documented suicides in Nigeria in 2018, about 62.1% of the victims choose ingesting Sniper as the means of suicide. It has also been established by several studies by the WHO that controlling access to pesticides have been effective in reducing suicide rates in countries like South Korea and Sri Lanka
The Case For Sniper
Banning Sniper and products like it now will remove the protective cover and endanger the lives of millions, it will set us back in the fight against vector-borne diseases and endanger public health
It is important to note that Sniper is not the cause of suicide. This reminder is important in the ongoing discussion on the subject. Sniper is an industrial grade chemical that is also used for public health purposes, it is dangerous to pests and human when inhaled, ingested or spilled on the body. So why is a product this harmful popular as a household pesticide? It is simply because the product is effective at killing household pests, it is available, accessible and affordable by the 90 million people living in abject poverty.
The over 90 million people who lack access to proper drainage, adequate shelter (most are slum dwellers), and access to quality health care, who for years, have used products like Sniper to fight pests that transmit killer diseases. Many of us remember the days when otapiapia was Nigeria’s most trusted anti-mosquito.
Talking about mosquitoes, a report by the US Embassy in Nigeria estimates that 100 million cases of malaria occur per year in Nigeria, resulting in over 300,000 deaths. It all starts with a mosquito bite. This gory data exists despite the widespread use of chemicals and long-lasting insecticide-treated nets to prevent mosquito bites and other efforts aimed at preventing the breeding of the insect. It is safe to say that many who are alive today would have been part of the statistics quoted earlier if not for the use of pesticides like Sniper.
Sniper and other pesticides like it are not popular because they kill humans by accident, they are popular because poor people find it affordable and effective at killing pests that endanger their health. Banning Sniper and products like it now will remove the protective cover and endanger the lives of millions, it will set us back in the fight against vector-borne diseases and endanger public health.
This is not to say that pesticides like Sniper are the most effective options available to win the war against pests and diseases they cause, but for now, it is the most affordable and convenient option for poor people. Its popularity testifies to that.
Banning pesticides have worked in South Korea mainly because the chemicals banned were agricultural chemicals that had no public health use, so the suicide rate was lowered with no tangible impact on agricultural yield. This is not the same as the case in Nigeria. South Korea does not have over half of its citizens living in abject poverty or 300,000 of them dying from malaria, Nigeria does. We cannot simply import that solution without considering our local reality, it will be a deliberate mistake that will cost us more. Before we think of eliminating Sniper and others like it, we must provide an alternative method of killing mosquitoes and this method must be acceptable to the poor.
If Sniper was being used solely as an agricultural pesticide in Nigeria, the argument to not ban it would be an inferior one, but our reality is that Sniper is widely used as a pest control chemical in households, not farms.
Outright Ban is Counter-Productive
In my previous discussions on this subject, I pointed out the pointlessness of banning Sniper. There are other products like Sniper out there, some with poetic names like “Good-bye” and “Executor”.
Is it anyone’s honest opinion that if Sniper is taken off the shelves, a person contemplating suicide will not purchase a similar product with the same effectiveness and a name more suitable for his intent? If we were to ban the whole range of products that could replace Sniper where does that leave us in our collective struggle against insect-borne diseases?
What happens when any popular product is banned in Nigeria is that the demand for the product goes up, prices go up and supply of the product continues because this is Nigeria, our borders are as leaky as sieves. We could well be enriching few Nigerians who will take advantage of the demand and cash out, at the detriment of the poor people who need protection.
There are those who believe that someone who really wants to take his life will seek another way out if Sniper is banned. This is logical and even backed by evidence. It is known that Gammallin 20 was once a poison favored for suicide and when it was banned for many reasons (not associated with suicide), Sniper became an option. So how many chemicals will we ban to end this suicide epidemic?
What happens to the manufacturers of these products and thousands of people who sell their products if we ban Sniper? Perhaps more suicides.
Banning pesticides outright will create new problems and compound present ones.
A Better Temporary Fix
I am aware of studies by the WHO that shows that when access to the most preferred suicide items is reduced or controlled, the suicide rate reduced. Many suicide victims have changed their mind about dying after ingesting poison, so it is reasonable to limit access to items and substances that make impulsive suicide easier. The time is right to find a way to regulate access to pesticides without making them totally unavailable.
While controlling access to these poisons is a good first step, our main fight should be to improve awareness about mental health, be kinder to one another and vigorously discourage suicide. Corporate entities including those who make poisonous substances should do more to discourage deliberate self-harm.
When the time comes for a decision to be made on whether to ban pesticides or limit access to it, concerned stakeholders should be involved in the discussion. Someone who cares about the well being of millions of poor Nigerians should be involved.
