J Psychiatr Pract. 2022 Jan 6;28(1):54-61. doi: 10.1097/PRA.0000000000000607.
Much has been written about the history of suicide and, notably, about societies that condemned both the act and the actor, resulting in a perpetuation of suicide being stigmatized in many cultures. One aspect of this perceived stigmatization involves exclusionary clauses in life insurance policies that reject paying benefits to survivor-beneficiaries of the decedent if the decedent has died by suicide within a prescribed time frame. From the perspective of the individual, life insurance is designed to protect the estate of a decedent from a significant financial burden. From the insurer's perspective, there are essentially 2 reasons for having a suicide exclusion clause: limiting risk and preventing or discouraging fraud. This column examines these rationales in light of the estimated few suicides that do occur during exclusionary clause time frames. Observations are made about the effect of these clauses on those impacted by the loss of a loved one who died by suicide within the exclusionary time frame. An examination of the perspectives of both the life insurance industry and the impacted survivors of suicide decedents raises questions about what are reasonable and appropriate exclusionary clause time frames that protect both the insurer and survivor-beneficiaries. The forensic expert consulting on such cases should be cognizant of these competing perspectives and engage in therapeutic assessment whenever possible, identifying opportunities to promote thoughtful suicide postvention.
关于自杀的历史，已经有很多著述，尤其是关于那些谴责自杀行为和自杀者的社会，导致自杀在许多文化中一直被污名化。这种污名化的一个方面涉及到寿险政策中的排除条款，如果被保险人在规定的时间内自杀身亡，这些条款拒绝向死者的生存受益人支付保险金。从个人的角度来看，寿险旨在保护死者的遗产免受重大经济负担。从保险公司的角度来看，有自杀排除条款的主要原因有两个：限制风险和防止或劝阻欺诈。本专栏根据排除期内发生的自杀事件估计很少这一事实，审视了这些理由。本文还观察了这些条款对那些在排除期内失去亲人的自杀身亡者的受影响者的影响。对寿险行业和受自杀身亡者影响的幸存者的观点进行考察，提出了一些问题，即哪些是合理和适当的排除期，既能保护保险公司又能保护生存受益人。在处理此类案件时，法医专家应意识到这些相互竞争的观点，并尽可能进行治疗性评估，寻找机会促进深思熟虑的自杀后预防。
