Abstract
Over the past two decades, suicide prevention efforts have expanded significantly, yet deeply held assumptions continue to shape policy in ways that may limit effectiveness. This paper critically examines key assumptions in suicide prevention, including the predictability of suicide, the role of suicidal ideation, and the conflation of self-harm and suicide. It challenges the view that mental illness is the primary cause of suicide and questions whether psychiatric hospital admission ensures safety. The paper also argues that overemphasis on prediction fosters fear-driven responses and explores how shifting the focus beyond risk reduction could foster more nuanced, compassionate and sustainable approaches to care.