Pattern 62
Suicide concerns receive a direct, humane response
Prioritise immediate safety and real human support without shutting the person out.
Concrete takeaway
For a concerning personal disclosure, respond calmly and clarify immediate safety with a brief direct question where needed.
Choose an approach
These are editorial decision conditions to validate. Some alternatives are successive states or can be combined; they are not always exclusive choices.
| Alternative | Use when | Tradeoff or requirement |
|---|---|---|
| A · Clarify gently | A concerning personal disclosure needs clarification | A direct question is not a validated AI risk assessment |
| B · Immediate danger | Immediate danger or injury is indicated | Verified emergency help cannot depend on a questionnaire |
| C · Ongoing distress | Distress continues without a stated immediate emergency | Keep human support accessible without promising monitoring |
The problem
Indirect suicidal language may be missed, while any mention of death may trigger an irrelevant crisis card. Long spiritual explanations can delay needed help.
The pattern
For a concerning personal disclosure, respond calmly and clarify immediate safety with a brief direct question where needed. If there is immediate danger or an injury, prioritise verified local emergency help and a safe person who can be present. Make human crisis support reachable without payment or account setup. Do not require method details or a completed questionnaire before showing help. Keep supportive conversation available without claiming treatment, live monitoring, emergency dispatch or guaranteed detection. A resource card supplements humane dialogue; it does not replace it.
Compare the alternatives
Prioritise immediate safety and real human support without shutting the person out.
A · Clarify gently
A brief direct question can clarify a concerning disclosure.
B · Immediate danger
Keep an emergency route brief and locally explicit.
C · Ongoing distress
Support stays available alongside human-help options.
Original wireframe proposals · No live controls · Grey rows represent schematic text, not loading states · Labelled placeholders are not Scripture quotations
Download this wireframe as SVGFailure modes
Theological condemnation; promises that prayer will resolve danger; a hotline-only dismissal; assuming calm wording means safety; fabricated phone numbers or dispatch.
Bible and faith considerations
Examples are design proposals, not a clinical protocol. Contact services and escalation capabilities require jurisdiction-specific verification and operational ownership.
What to validate
Clinical reviewers must test indirect language, acute and non-acute concerns, location uncertainty, failed contact actions, historical Bible discussion and multi-turn changes. Do not present chatbot routing as a validated risk scale.
Sensitive design proposal · Clinical review required. These visual alternatives have not been tested with users in this atlas. Source findings, documented behaviour and this proposed adaptation are different kinds of evidence.
Sources and adaptation
This card is an original design synthesis. The following sources inform its content distinctions, interaction approach or review requirements; they do not validate the whole pattern.
- Five action steps for helping someone having thoughts of suicideOfficial public-health guidance reviewed on 5 October 2026 · Human-helper guidance, not a validated chatbot risk assessment. US contact information must not be exported to other jurisdictions.
- Dealing with psychological crisesOfficial guidance reviewed · Country-specific guidance; routing proposals are not guaranteed crisis detection.
- Expressing stigma and inappropriate responses prevents LLMs from safely replacing mental health providersOriginal paper reviewed · Specific models and experimental scenarios; not a measurement of all present or future systems.
Common scenarios and flows
- Respond to a sensitive disclosure with accountable support — Keep disclosure, present safety, user choice and service responsibility distinct.
Design principles in this decision
Editorial application of Missional by Design. These values frame review questions; they do not validate a pattern’s effectiveness.
- Reverence — What does this interaction ask of the person, and can they understand, decline, correct or leave it without penalty?
Compare alternatives using the task and evidence above. Record competing needs instead of treating a principle as an automatic verdict.
Regional applicability
Design review questions · 5 October 2026. These prompts identify possible triggers; they do not classify this pattern or every faith app as a regulated service.
Could functionality, marketing or reasonable expectations make this a companion or mental-health service? Define the human role, health claims, escalation capability and locally verified support route before selecting dialogue UI.
Start with EU and Germany, then review the relevant market:
- US · California — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · New York — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · Utah: mental-health chatbots — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · Illinois — Enacted AI-specific therapy restrictions
- US · Texas — Enacted AI-specific law; effective 1 January 2026
- US · Federal health software and data — Existing law; regulator implementation guidance
- United Kingdom — Existing law + regulator guidance; policy statement
- Australia — Existing law + regulator guidance; national policy
Use the jurisdiction decision guide to record the trigger, source version and resulting product requirement.