Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated at 11.30am
A SPECIAL TRAINING programme to help teachers spot the distress signals that could lead to student suicide will take place later this month.
The event is being hosted by the national suicide prevention and bereavement charity Console.
Supporting Our Students suicide prevention training will take place in the Hilton Hotel in Kilmainham, Dublin on Friday, 17 April.
Console CEO Paul Kelly said the course will “enable teachers, lecturers and others in education identify the warning signs of students at risk and give them the skills they need to respond effectively”.
A host of complex problems from exam stress, bullying and social media harassment to self-harming behaviours, can lead to suicidal ideation among students in our second level schools and third level colleges.
The half-day programme is based on the suicide prevention training known as QPR: question, persuade and refer.
“Just as people trained in CPR help save thousands of lives each year, people trained in QPR learn how to recognise the warning signs of a suicide crisis and how to question, persuade and refer someone to help,” Kelly said.
“This QPR training involves helping teachers to recognise and respond to suicide warning signs that may appear in a student’s behaviour or conversation, in their work, or in their texts and social media communications.
Troubled students may be experiencing a variety of personal, emotional and psychological problems, only one of which may be suicidal desire and intent.
“Those attending will gain an insight into suicidal behaviour and how to spot distress signals that a student may be in crisis. They will learn what to do if they are concerned and how to refer someone for help,” he added.
The course will run from 10am to 1pm on 17 April. The booking fee is €50. For more information, visit Console’s website or call 01 6274347.
Console offers counselling services and 24-hour helpline support to people in crisis and those bereaved by suicide (Freephone 1800 247 247).
The charity has full time centres in Dublin, Limerick, Cork, Wexford, Galway, Kerry, Kildare, Athlone and Mayo. It also offers liaison services in counties Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Tipperary and Clare.
Samaritans 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org
Console 1800 247 247 (suicide prevention, self-harm, bereavement)
Aware 1890 303 302 (depression, anxiety)
Pieta House 01 601 0000 or email mary@pieta.ie - (suicide, self-harm)
Teen-Line Ireland 1800 833 634 (for ages 13 to 19)
Childline 1800 66 66 66 (for under 18s)
First posted at 7.50am.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
So abortion up to 20 weeks in North Carolina is considered restrictive. By who?
^
Another man with all of the answers on what restrictions should be placed on bodily autonomy for women
@The Risen: nah, your the man with all the answers Tony. Yourself & Orla/Liam.
@The Risen: ^^ another person deflecting from the main ethical issue..
@Seamus Mac: * you’re
@The Risen:
Hahaha, the hypocrisy of the pro abortionists is something else.
It was nine men who signed the Roe v Wade bill, no? A bill based on a lie, don’t you remember?
@Candace: Seeing as though Roe v Wade was 1973, no I don’t remember. But as you do, can we take it you’re a 50+ year old male, again, with all the answers for women of child bearing age?
@The Risen:
Nah, your wrong again, I’m 1976 meself, but the case wasn’t too hard to study growing up.
So we’re you ok with 9 men signing in a bill regarding a bill into law while all along the bill actually being based on a lie??
I’ll wait.
@Candace: was the bill based on a lie or was that particular case based on a lie?
@Candace: Ah so you’re a 40 something man with all the answers for women on their reproductive rights. Oh, and my position on abortion is not based on any decision taken in a foreign court, whether you contest it was based on a lie or not.
@The Risen:
Yeah, it was a lie from beginning to end. And you’re a hypocrite with the morals of a rock.
@Candace: Love it when the childish insults start. Want to throw in a ‘big doo doo head’ for the audience?
@The Risen:
Childish insults, did you get that vibe from my comment, and there was me telling it how it is.
@Seamus Mac: By the women who do not wish to be pregnant
@Candace: awww hims got all annoyed by a simple question when all he’s basing his assumption that it’s a lie on is the word of said liar.
@Dave O’Keeffe:
Dave, I’m fond of our comment exchanges, but going on like our local multi account troll, Orla & Francis is a no no.
Abortion! The morally dead killing the innocent
@Jimmy Carroll: Can we take it you get your morals from the catholic church Jimmy?
@The Risen: do you get paid to deflect??
@The Risen: why do you presume that a person who supports the right to life gets their morals from a religion??
@Devilsavocado: Just ignore him. That’s just his tactic to dodge the truth.
@Devilsavocado: The terms and definitions you use are based on nonsense and religious edicts. A very loose nebulous definition of life is used as a marker plus the mysoginistic denial of bodily integrity. Then of course there is the problem of those without a uterus deciding.
@SteoG: what terms and definitions have I used?? You assume that I’m a religious person, I’m not, not in any way, so once again I ask, what makes you think I get my morals from a religion? in your mind does every person who struggles with the complexity of abortion have to walk around clutching rosary beads???
@SteoG: would you be so kind as to share your non-nebulous definition of life with us mere mortals?
@The Risen: where do you get your morals from?
@SteoG:
Give us the moral argument for destroying Human life in utero then?
@Seamus Mac: Critical thinking and reason
@The Risen: still no answer to my question??
@Devilsavocado: Isn’t “right to/pro… etc, etc, hijacked terms used by one side to try to project the opposite on any who disagree? I do not know whether you hold any religious conviction I can only take your word on it. I also struggles with the complexity of the issue. However the vast majority of the people who profess an absolute right are religious hence you get roped in. It is the absolutist nature of the debate where people will not accept any reasonable middle ground at all. You can be atheist and hold extreme views just as you can be religious and also liberal.
@Candace: Where do I say anything about destroying human life?
@The Risen: so from yourself. Your own personal morality.
@Devilsavocado: I looked at his twitter account.
@Seamus Mac: Yes. My morality/ethics are based on reason, they are not imposed by a religious authority.
@The Risen: you seem very impressed with yourself. Like i said, your own subjective moral relativism.
@SteoG: so it boils down to choice for you, the woman’s body so it’s her choice and her choice only, yes??
@The Risen: so it’s choice for you as well, the woman’s body the woman’s decision, yes??
@Seamus Mac: Where does your morals come from Seamus??
@Devilsavocado: It will never be a choice for me or any other man. So yes it is partly about choice which is just one of many reasons. Though I will accept the absolute opposite position when they campaign for equality for everyone. So when all people get the right to be tethered to other healthy people for life support when needed whether they (the healthy) like it or not. Then it will be the same right to life for all.
@SteoG: what about a transgender man?
@The Risen: *do
@SteoG: so for you abortion up to full term is acceptable? If not who are you do deny any woman that choice?
@The Risen: my morals are informed from experience & the teachings of the church. The issue of abortion however, if we use critical thinking, is quite clear cut. Human life begins at conception. Abortion takes a human life. You have to dehumanise the life in utero so that your moral standpoint appears okay but it will never be. Once you put restrictions on the value of a human life there is no going back.
@Seamus Mac: So, basically, you get your morals on the subject of abortion from your experience as a man and from the catholic church.
I’m glad neither men nor the church no longer hold any sway over womens reproductive rights.
@Devilsavocado: Now you are getting silly creating a strawman. Where did I say any such thing?
@Seamus Mac: What are you on about?
@The Risen:
1) Western civilisation and culture is based on Judeo-Christian values. Whether you are religious or nonreligious, this cannot be disputed.
2) Women’s reproductive rights cannot come at the expense of human life.
@Jack Simpson:
……and yet women are free to access safe, supervised, legal abortions regardless of your point, which is obviously little more than your opinion.
@SteoG: creating a straw-man?? Stop talking nonsense, you blame religion on people’s beliefs in supporting the right to life,, yet you believe in choice, but only up to a certain point time in the pregnancy?? What’s your reason for that?? Does it become immoral after a certain time?? If so when??
@The Risen: you must have skipped history class then.
@SteoG: you said it would never be a choice for any man.
@The Risen: thats not what i said at all. Have another read.
@Devilsavocado: I am not religious so I do not accept the religious view which is just based on a mans opinion. I don’t believe, I hold an opinion based on my reading of unbiased scientific and medical opinion the experience of health professionals and my own life experience. I then come to a conclusion based on reason. My opinion would fall in line with the first trimester with the conditions of only serious medical life threatening complications outside that period.
@Seamus Mac: Ok, I get you. My fault I was speaking in general terms. I don’t generally think in terms of trans people. Of course I should so have to try in future. The way I would view that is that if the transgender person with a uterus and ovaries becomes pregnant then the same rules apply.
@SteoG: my fault, i wasn’t clear.
@SteoG: I don’t agree with that but can accept it is a logical position. The problem with it is that others will leverage that position as the thin end of the wedge and keep pushing for ever more extreme positions. Also there is a difference between scientific and medical opinion. The Science is straightforward. It is alive and you have to kill it. The medical is that it isn’t aware or sentient so that it is ok to kill it. Quantum Biology may at some point open some different avenues.
@Seamus Mac: considering that church allows only men in priest and pope positions, its funny that women’s bodily functions are dictated by celibate men. Ironic ??
Some religious people are intimidating and terrorising women for using health care. If people want to be religious, that’s their prerogative, but they shouldn’t be foisting their religious views, as theocratic laws on others.
https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/what-it-takes-to-enter-the-last-remaining-abortion-clinic-in-kentucky
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/texas-abortion-death-penalty-bill-hb896-homicide-prolife-movement-a8863916.html
@KingCrisp: It’s not a religious thing, it’s human decency thing, I’m non religious as are many who support the right to life. As for your links the first one doesn’t play but it’s one clip and not representative of every clinic, there are plenty clips of prolife people just holding signs and saying nothing getting the crap kicked out of them just for standing there, these are also not representative of every pro abortion/pro life interaction. Your second clip asked why so many prolife people are in support of the death penalty, I can certainly see where both sides are coming from, it’s one thing to kill an innocent human but quite another to kill someone who has committed heinous crimes. Personally I prefer life sentences. Make them live every single day behind bars.
@Rachel O’ Meara: It’s human decency to provide womens healthcare. No babies are killed. It’s immoral to deny womens healthcare. It is a religious thing, to say otherwise, it is either disingenuous, or you are unawares as to the religious standpoint of women’s healthcare and sex etc. Your views are directly in line with these religious views, who use it to repress women’s reproduction and their access to healthcare. Masturbation is a sin and sexual procreation with pleasure is considered a sin. Religion dogma only sees sperm and sexual procreations only use, is for reproduction. Condoms are considered a sin and they where made illegal by the church in Ireland. The first clip is indicative of the intimidation outside of abortion clinics and advice clinics. Nobody should be allowed to terrorise and intimidate women who are seeking healthcare. Anyone who assaults people protesting is disgraceful. They can protest a large distance away as has happened in the UK, but not directly be allowed to harass and intimidate people.
The second link shows that some anti-abortion religious extremists are on a par with ISIS, with their penchant for killing people who don’t abide their religious laws. They want to execute women who avail of abortion in Texas. Religious men have a penchant for controlling women. In the past they murdered hundreds of thousands of women, by calling them witches, just to keep control of women and keep them in their place
The only deaths that have resulted from safe abortion in the US are from anti-abortion religious extremists terrorists, that have resulted in many deaths and serious injuries and from unsafe abortions that have resulted in around 3000 womens deaths and over two hundred thousand serious injuries, resulting in hospitalisation.
In the US extremist terrorists have blown up abortion clinics, with a plethora of murder/violence/extremist hate. One guy who shot and murdered 3 people said he was happy for what he had done :(
“Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion. Incidents of violence have included destruction of property, in the form of vandalism; crimes against people, including kidnapping, stalking, assault, attempted murder, and murder; and crimes affecting both people and property, including arson and bombings.
Anti-abortion extremists are considered a current domestic terrorist threat by the United States Department of Justice.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/11/planned-parenthood-shooter-happy-his-attack/32579921/
@KingCrisp: you’re deluded..
@KingCrisp: your anti racist views are in line with the anti racist views of the church, therefore you’re a religious nutter if we apply your remarkably illogical principles consistently. Correlation is not necessarily causation, and words are not assault, and will not be assault no matter how many times you repeat that erroneous interpretation. Assault is assault, except when it happens to people you dislike, in which case you refuse to recognise actual as being assault while repeatedly insisting words are assault when you dislike the words.
@KingCrisp: Abortion.Is.Not.Healthcare. If human life has to die it can’t logically be called care. It’s immoral to kill human life. It isn’t religious to want to stand up for humans whose rights have been trampled on. The church has many rules, just like other churches, I’m not religious so I don’t know much about their current rules and views. I just know that killing human life is wrong,it is not healthcare and it if women think they aren’t in control of their own bodies they are deluded. They have tons of choices, abstain from sex, have sex but use protection, double up on protection, even triple up on protection (it can be done), everything fails which is extremely unlikely get the morning after pill as a precaution. See loads of choices and a baby doesn’t have to die in the process.
@Rachel O’ Meara: ‘Abortion.Is.Not.Healthcare’
It is, according to the world health organisation, who list abortion drugs on their list of essential medicines.
What qualification do you have to question their position?
@The Risen: ‘It is according to the WHO’ – so what!? The WHO is not exactly a beacon of morality. It is only as good as the people that work in it. Clearly, it sets the bar low.
@Jack Simpson: morality according to whom? Certain religions don’t allow blood transfusions that are life saving because that’s considered immoral to them. Healthcare should not be dependent on someone’s else’s opinion or morals. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. Pretty simple really.
@The Risen: that’s what’s known as argumentum ab auctoritate, or argument from authority. I notice above you claim your morality stems from your application of reason. However, you appear to be struggling to apply reason here, instead falling into fallacy. Can’t help but question your relative morality in those circumstances I’m sure you’ll agree, as a reasonable person and all.
@Louise:
1) Agreed re religions and suspect beliefs BUT Western civilisation and society was founded on Judeo-Christian values. These values have had an enormous impact (mostly positive) on how we live today, e.g. the impact of the ten commandments on ‘western’ law.
2) One of the commandants is ‘thou shalt not kill’. This is reasonable. Supporting abortion goes against this. If you can morally justify it for unborn, what next? Newborns?
3) Abortion is not healthcare.
@winston smith: You have previously generally said to people that they should discuss the subject matter and not to personally attack people, to stick to the news article, if my memory serves me correct. You again have not addressed the journals media article and IMHO your personally attacking me and a lot of the other commenters in a very tetchy post. It’s got nothing to do with the article and there is no logic to any of this comment that is personally attacking me and religious people by calling them and me “religious nutter”. If you disagree with people of faith you should do so with a modicum of decorum, at the very least, instead of using nasty derogatory hateful words of “religious nutter”. Disagree by all means but you should use some civility towards religious people, even if they have different views.
@Rachel O’ Meara: I’ve shown you that it’s religious theocracy laws that is the driving force behind abortion, but you keep on ignoring facts. It doesn’t mean that a very small amount of non-religious people can’t hold the same view. Abortion is health care and not killing babies as you and religious people say exactly the same. The only people that normally say this are religious people. No babies are killed. Read my comment again about religious views that determined reproduction rights in law in Ireland etc. Condoms and abortion where illegal solely down to religion. You are singing from the same hymn sheet and you have even thrown in a very nasty hateful anti-women “abstain from sex” ergo keep your legs closed that a small amount of religious people, have also said in the comments. IMHO it’s strange that so called non-religious people that say they are “I’m not religious so I don’t know much about their current rules and views” even though there words are verbatim.
“everything fails which is extremely unlikely get the morning after pill as a precaution” people don’t always know if they are pregnant with contraception and the pill, ergo they are pregnant unexpectedly.
Before Roe vrs Wade note from above: “The only deaths that have resulted from safe abortion in the US are from anti-abortion religious extremists terrorists, that have resulted in many deaths and serious injuries and from unsafe abortions that have resulted in around 3000 womens deaths and over two hundred thousand serious injuries, resulting in hospitalisation, per annum”. Abortion health care has saved the lives and serious injury of many women, but you want to either jail these women using theocratic laws, or let them die and suffer due to unsafe abortions, that happen irrespective of anti-women religious laws.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/13/donald-trump-evangelical-christians-republicans-abortion-supreme-court
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/04/northern-irish-woman-suspended-sentence-self-induced-abortion
Off we go to the Supreme Court…
abortion the eugenics tool nazis love
@Ismise Máire:
Margaret Sanger was fond of both too.
@Ismise Máire: The NSDAP or nazis were strongly anti smoking and passed laws making cruelty to animals illegal. Thank you for your non argument.
@SteoG: it was more of a statement.
The whole motivation behind enacting these laws prior to testing viability is that they will be challenged the courts. Some have even admitted to this, yet their opposition still dutifully plays into their hands.
Good total unrealistic legislation. This about control. If you are not invited get out of the bedroom, and doctors office. None of your business.
@Róisín Daly: I want my doctor to prescribe me a few thousand benzos so I can sell them down the boardwalk. Should legislators be allowed interfere in that if not invited to do so?
Good!
have your say