SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the 1-(800)-273-8255-National-Suicide-Prevention-Lifeline dept.
Experts and laymen have long assumed that people who died by suicide will ultimately do it even if temporarily deterred. Now Celia Watson Seupel reports at the NYT that a growing body of evidence challenges this view with many experts calling for a reconsideration of suicide-prevention strategies stressing “means restriction.” Instead of treating individual risk, means restriction entails modifying the environment by removing the means by which people usually die by suicide. The world cannot be made suicide-proof, of course. But, these researchers argue, if the walkway over a bridge is fenced off, a struggling college freshman cannot throw herself over the side. If parents leave guns in a locked safe, a teenage son cannot shoot himself if he suddenly decides life is hopeless.
Reducing the availability of highly lethal and commonly used suicide methods has been associated with declines in suicide rates of as much as 30%–50% in other countries (PDF). According to Cathy Barber, people trying to die by suicide tend to choose not the most effective method, but the one most at hand. Some methods have a case fatality rate as low as 1 or 2 percent,” says Barber. “With a gun, it’s closer to 85 or 90 percent. So it makes a difference what you’re reaching for in these low-planned or unplanned suicide attempts.” Ken Baldwin, who jumped from the Golden Gate Bridge in 1985 and lived, told reporters that he knew as soon as he had jumped that he had made a terrible mistake. "From the instant I saw my hand leave the railing, I knew I wanted to live. I was terrified out of my skull." Baldwin was lucky to survive the 220 foot plunge into frigid waters. Ms. Barber tells another story: On a friend’s very first day as an emergency room physician, a patient was wheeled in, a young man who had shot himself in a suicide attempt. “He was begging the doctors to save him,” she says. But they could not.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Thursday March 12 2015, @03:28AM
Seriously. I don't expect to kill myself anytime soon if ever, but knowing that I have the ability to do so should I decide to do as such makes going through life easier. Don't bubble wrap reality for me just because you decide the "easy out" is not in what you think is my best interest.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday March 12 2015, @04:02AM
Hang on, they can't really stop anyone from killing themselves (there's a million ways to die) but blocking/impeding the most visible suicide methods results in a steep 30-50% decline in suicides.
That means those would-be suiciders didn't have their heart and creativity in it, and shouldn't be allowed to do it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday March 12 2015, @05:19AM
> shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Why not?
Any adult who is not in charge of someone else should be allowed to off themselves, any time they want, in a private manner. Just stop jumping in front of high-speed trains, on highways, suiciding by cops, or anything else ruining innocents' day/life, and please post a video making clear no investigation is needed. Thank you.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @08:49AM
Sure, because a murderer tarning his murder as suicide would never make a fake video to that effect. OK, so you may say that a fake video is easily detected as such. Well, probably it is, assuming one actually tries to. In other words, assuming there's an investigation. So you need an investigation to find out whether you need an investigation. Or in short: There's no way to skip the investigation step.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday March 12 2015, @03:39PM
True. I was just trying to help the cops go faster, given the 40000 suicides they have to go over every year. I would assume over 90% of them don't actually need a multi-day investigation.
New recommendation: please kill yourself in front of the security cameras of the morgue, or the nearest EMS station. That will reduce the costs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday March 12 2015, @05:32AM
Yeah, I don't believe for a minute that you could "availability of highly lethal and commonly used suicide methods" in the real world. Are we to close all bridges, ban all medicines, confiscate all razor blades and rip out all bathtubs? Or is is just a gun grab in disguise? (Reading the PDF pretty much shows it to be the latter).
The real (and only believable) finding from all the "other countries" was that DELAY of the attempt till the urge passes reduced attempts. (Well DUH!).
Intervention (detention) with physical restraint is probably a lot easier in some countries than it is in the US.
So baring involuntary commitment, they want to reduce prescription sizes and duration, Lock up any high places from everyone, change the laws of combustion so motor vehicle exhaust won't kill, and, what else.... Oh yeah, get gun out of reach. Preferably from everyone.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Thursday March 12 2015, @12:32PM
Oh yeah, get gun(s) out of reach. Preferably from everyone.
From your lips to god's ears.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday March 12 2015, @01:06PM
Just remember where all gun laws come from folks....fear of an armed negro.... Don't take MY word for it, look it up, there is an excellent documentary on YouTube under that title that traces back to the first gun laws where the ones who wrote it state outright that is what they are for. Rich white folks can afford to jump through the hoops, poor whites and blacks can't. That is why they demonized the "Saturday Night Special" in the 70s, it was cheap and well made. After the cop shooting in MO expect a LOT of "for your safety" gun laws, but they are really written to make sure you don't have armed blacks who can defend themselves.
So just remember gun banners, when you support gun control? You are supporting policies based on racism.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @04:24PM
They may have initially been created due to racism but racism is far from the only reason for them. Saying that racism is the only reason for them is pure straw man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @11:33PM
OK then. What other reason is there where banning or restricting firearms would be effective? Go ahead, I DARE you.
Anything you come up with will have been tried elsewhere and failed or had significant negative unintended consequences in one way or another.
All the countries where firearms have been seriously restricted have either seen no statistically significant change or, far more likely, an increase in the crime rate. Australia and the UK.
I will simply drop this link in as it is a great resource for people who want to let facts and logic, rather than feelings, rule government policy.
http://www.gunfacts.info/ [gunfacts.info]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Friday March 13 2015, @12:30AM
The worst part is that a lot of those measures get rid of the most easy and painless ways of doing it. If I wanted to go, I'd rather take a bunch of pills and nod off while dying rather than have to slowly bleed out from razor blade cuts or hope that I angle the gun properly. Easier cleanup and less traumatic for whoever finds me too.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @05:58AM
That is lying with statistics. Impeding gun ownership in some countries has resulted in a 30% drop in gun related suicides. The overall suicide rate remained the same.
That reminds me of some academic papers indicating that, in dry regions i.e. ones without alcohol, the alcoholism rate drops while tobacco use and drug abuse rises. Why? The underlying issue is not resolved, but it does make for pretty numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @06:26AM
And who knows if the alcohol rate really dropped or if it's that prohibited alcoholic use is more difficult to statististcally track than legal alcoholic use. Drug stats aren't easy to track but when comparing changes in the rate of prohibited drug usage where both the before and after comparisons involve prohibited drug usage and the variable is unrelated such that it shouldn't affect the measurement in changes in such stats then measured changes more strongly suggest real world changes. But comparing prohibited alcoholic use with legal use when alcohilic prohibition itself likely affects your ability to measure alcoholic use is more suspect.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @06:51AM
> Impeding gun ownership in some countries has resulted in a 30% drop in gun related suicides.
> The overall suicide rate remained the same.
"So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness."
-- Did gun control work in Australia? [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @09:43AM
Go ahead, pull the other one.
This one [nih.gov]is peer reviewed, unlike the Washington post.
The problem is getting worse even with strong gun controls.
From an actually Aussie source. [lifeline.org.au]
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Thursday March 12 2015, @10:34AM
i read a headline blurb that suicide among 40-65 in the US has gone up 40% in the last 7-8 years...
not surprised, the economic crash-that-wasn't-a-crash has destroyed a lot of lives, and made a lot of misery through no fault of the people effected... *and* they are essentially powerless to reverse their fortunes...
just another unaccounted for 'externality' in unrestrained kapitalist imperialism...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @03:18PM
> This one is peer reviewed, unlike the Washington post.
The study referenced in the wapo article is peer reviewed.
The study you linked to does not say what you think it says. It only looked at suicide rates up to 1998.
In other words that study ended rate when the gun buyback was completed.
> From an actually Aussie source.
I'm sorry what? You know that's not peer reviewed, right?
Raw data without analysis is practically guaranteed to mislead.
If these two 'refutations' are the best the pro-gun types can do, then all you've done is provide justification to distrust your reasoning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @06:10PM
The buried reference was not in fact peer reviewed but self published in it's own institution's journal, then referenced elsewhere in peer reviewed journals. This is a perennial problem and anyone that has a pos-tgrad education knows it.
According to you the fact that a 2003 paper did not use data after 1998 is not a problem.
And analysis without raw data is intended to mislead, just as you have been citing, using, and making.
I am not a "pro-gun type" as you say. Even if I was, that is no reason to thoroughly dismiss someone's reasoning. I believe in rationality, facts, and finding answers instead of accepting what is told to me. You have given away your bigotry. That you stereotype and show prejudicial discrimination against those you perceive to not follow along with an anti-gun narrative (even though that is not even my point, just that suicide rates are shown to be independent of guns) is an ethical and logical reason to question your morality and thought process.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @08:09PM
The buried reference was not in fact peer reviewed but self published in it's own institution's journal, then referenced elsewhere in peer reviewed journals. This is a perennial problem and anyone that has a pos-tgrad education knows it.
Your claim is false.
http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/2/509 [oxfordjournals.org]
"The Review is a refereed journal, published twice a year." [oxfordjournals.org]
According to you the fact that a 2003 paper did not use data after 1998 is not a problem.
Your logic is insipid. It is not a "problem," it is irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.
I am not a "pro-gun type" as you say
Well alrighty then.
You are just a blatant liar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @10:07AM
Jesus Christ just look at the graphs in the cited in cited in cited in paper! Right on page nine [andrewleigh.org] the suicide rates by firearm and non-firearm have an amazingly strong negative correlation.
Did one suicide rate go up when the other went down? Absolutely, but the switch happened right before they started to measure for it. And they stopped measuring in 2006, when the rates started skyrocketing back up. They are asshats of the lowest sort of academic integrity. They don't even deserve to mop the floors of any university.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @02:58PM
> Right on page nine the suicide rates by firearm and non-firearm have an amazingly strong negative correlation.
A correlation that began long before the buyback started. That's not causation.
Meta comment: Did you really think that the authors of the study failed to recognize something in the charts of their own study?
> And they stopped measuring in 2006, when the rates started skyrocketing back up. They are asshats of the lowest sort of academic integrity.
I don't think that a study published in 2010, which means that it was probably started circa 2008 is being dishonest by using data that ended in 2006. My guess is that it was the most current data at the time.
I'm having difficulty finding suicide rate data much past 2006 myself. Since you seem to be aware of it, how about a link to it? It's not going to show that the 2008 economic crash is correlated with a trend reversal in the suicide rate is it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @05:58PM
I did link to it and you called it irrelevant. You are in extreme denial and are willing to break reason for authoritarian gains. The numbers are there, in the original sources, you choose to ignore it and use assumptions instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @08:14PM
> I did link to it and you called it irrelevant.
Oh so you are doing that thing where you reply to a single post of mine multiple times.
Good to know there is only one idiot lying to people in this thread.
What you linked to was ridiculous. It was a PR page on a suicide prevention website.
I mean, WTF dude? That's your standard of evidence, but peer-reviewed academics studies are bullshit.
Are you gewg_troll? Your self-absorbed idiocy really sounds like that loser.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @06:01PM
Causation does not need to be proved. The null hypothesis is that gun control has no causation with suicides. That is easy to prove simply by showing the negative correlation.
Meta comment: Do you really think people are not without agendas and biases?
When the data that is chosen to not be used refutes the claims of the paper and they go ahead and publish it anyway four years into the refutation, yes that is being dishonest.
(Score: 1) by wisnoskij on Monday March 16 2015, @02:08PM
Just because a high percentage are prevented when you take out some of the easiest most pain free methods does not mean they really did not want to die. Just because I did not have the courage to stab a pencil through my eye does not mean that I would not of liked to shoot myself in the head. And most people who would want to end their life suffer form depression and extreme lethargy. Making something hard prevents them from doing it, full stop. It does not matter if what that is. If you made it a challenge to stay alive they would just give up and die. Simply because they did not have the the will to persevere and kill themselves does not mean they did not truly want to die.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fishybell on Thursday March 12 2015, @04:05AM
While I agree that bubble-wrapping the world is a poor answer, I think things like what exists at the golden gate bridge are a good answer: Every few dozen yards there is a phone hooked up to a suicide prevention hotline. [tripadvisor.com] They noticed a high incidence of suicides in the area, so they decided to do something about it. I am 100% in favor of this approach: if there is a noticed problem, do something about it. If that means fencing a bridge, fine. If that means taking away someones gun, fine. Does that mean fencing every bridge or locking up every gun? No.
For most people suicidal thoughts are temporary. At the time, they feel all-consuming and never-ending, but usually pass after an amount of time. I'm all in favor of making suicide harder. I knew only one person who successfully committed suicide, but I still know several who failed and saw the error in their ways or gave up after it was too hard. Painting all situations as an "easy out" is doing a significant disservice to people who are having very real struggles. Congratulations, you're not one of them, but compassion is easy: you should try it some day.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday March 12 2015, @05:41AM
Does that mean fencing every bridge or locking up every gun? No.
Which bridges then? And which guns?
And who decides? The same psychologists and psychiatrists with their mind numbing drugs and enough SDM-IV codes to declare anyone a suicide risk?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday March 13 2015, @12:47AM
I don't mind the suicide prevention lines. That sounds reasonable. I'm not saying that there's a lot of people out there who would change their minds about it, given the chance. I just think to look at it as an all-or-nothing "suicide should be prevented as much as possible", they should look more closely at the reasons why it's being done to begin with. A gun being owned isn't causing suicide any more than a circular saw is. We just need to stop looking at it as though there's something wrong with a person for wanting to do that. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @05:22AM
Nearly two thirds of gun deaths in the USA are suicides. [pewresearch.org]
I used to think that wasn't a problem.
But then I realized that they were the result of illness, not fully rational decisions made with a sound mind. That people who want to do a Kevorkian, don't blow their brains out because finding their body afterwards would traumatize their family.
I think that over the next decade the pro-gun people are going to have a big problem standing up to ~19,000 preventable deaths each year - even if a small percent just switch to other means. [thinkprogress.org] I have not been able to come up with a rational and compassionate argument that stands up to that number. It has converted me from someone who was libertarian-typical pro-gun to someone who is mildly anti-gun.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @09:46AM
The problem with strong asstertions like that, is it only takes one anectode to prove you are wrong.
My uncle walked out into the desert and took his head off with a shotgun. He suffered from depression his entire life. A very rational man that had no rational expectation of a lifelong condition to dissipate died alone and did not want to be found.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @02:29PM
(1) No it doesn't. Making legal policy by anecdote in contradiction to the overwhelming majority of counter-evidence isn't a good idea.
(2) Your example is not a contradictory anecdote. All non-kevorkian suicides are caused by depression. Furthermore, walking out into the desert assures that his family won't be the ones to find his mangled body.
(Score: 1) by wisnoskij on Monday March 16 2015, @02:16PM
Just because some people misuse a tool, does not invalidate the majority who do not. If you want to tackle the issue, tackle it at its source, psychological wellness.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Thursday March 12 2015, @03:48AM
So a few more people can enjoy the misery we're all forced to endure. Instead of trying to fix our broken society, they want to break it more.
There is risk associated with living. Life itself exists in violation of the natural state; homeostasis is death. On the one hand, it's great our society has progressed to the point where we can consider these things. On the other, we have to put things in perspective. Suicide is terrible, but it isn't a major killer in terms of raw numbers. Sure, it's the 12th leading cause of death. But getting people to actually vaccinate their kids would be more useful to society as a whole than ramming through a raft of massively restrictive legislation.
This is, to be blunt, a baldfaced excuse for the government to interfere in your life even further. The real motive here is guns. Yes, they're an effective form of ending one's life. So is jumping into a piece of farm equipment, but this isn't a discussion and logic has no place here.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday March 12 2015, @07:12AM
Lots of up-mods for such a simplistic naive answer.
If ANYONE could find a plan to fix a broken society (never mind that people can't even agree what is and is not broken), that person would be first on my list of suspects. There is nothing so dangerous as someone with a plan to reform society.
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. MLK.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @08:42AM
Not really. Simplistic naive answers supporting the prevalent group think are the sure way to get many upmods. So nothing unusual here.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Thursday March 12 2015, @02:23PM
I'll bite. People are committing suicide by and large because we have a society where it's becoming increasingly difficult if not outright impossible to be upwardly mobile. Freedom of choice, freedom to be curious, freedom to pursue their interests has been shoved aside in the face of a malignant corporatist culture the goal of which is a population of debt serfs, not thinking individuals. It's this we must fix.
The middle class is sliding back into poverty while the rich get richer by fleecing them. They're told education/college is the answer at an age where they are not capable of making fully informed decisions about the effects of current actions on their futures (on average that age is 25, per psychological studies). Then they tow this debt burden with them for life, because the gov't has made it impossible to discharge. As a side benefit that means literally anyone will lend money to anyone with a pulse to go to college, as it's guaranteed to be collected. Because the supply is infinite, no surprises here, costs skyrocket. Quality has also tanked, because higher ed institutions have realized more students is better for the bottom line in every case. This is without even touching the disaster that is K-12 education, designed to produce fact-memorizing robots rather than fostering independent thought and curiosity. Every human starts as a scientist/engineer, experimentation is how we learn how the world works. It's actually the default state; that has to be driven out of people by the system.
I could go on. Near-guaranteed bankruptcy if you contact the medical system. Racism inherent to affirmative action. However, if you want actionable fixes, here are a few.
1) Make all debt dischargeable in bankruptcy, which is what the Constitution actually requires.
2) Mandatory sunset provisions for all legislation not to exceed 15 years. Have Congress worried about refining laws that actually matter with the times, instead of bogging down the US Code which is already so stuffed that you commit, on average, 3 felonies per day (Google it).
3) Require all point-of-care medical institutions to be non-profits.
4) Eliminate or limit the shit out of money and the revolving door in politics.
5) Return the Senate to State appointment instead of direct election. We need one body at least which can focus on what's in the interest of the States, and not constantly worried about the next election cycle.
Any more snarky comments?
(Score: 1) by wisnoskij on Monday March 16 2015, @02:48PM
Not that I disagree with much you have said, but I don't agree that those would have any effect on suicide. I guess, lets start at the beginning. I don't think upwards mobility has much effect on suicide (that is not even a thing that existed throughout all of our evolution), nor do I think it is something to necessarily strive for. America is founded on merit. Americans have always and continue to want reward to be derived from merit. Considering that intelligence and many the physical features are very heritable you would not expect a meritocracy to necessarily be very mobile. After an initial chaotic period you would expect a meritocracy to settle down and not differ too much from a class based system in practice.
Suicide is caused by social problems. People living on rice in a gutter are happy if they have the respect and love of friends and family and have dependents. The problem is that the government has dismantled the family and community. Town and families used to look out for eachother. As long as you had living family you did not used to be able to be homeless or starving. But the government came in with things like welfare and tricked people into believing they no longer need their family to watch their back and now all we have are lonely individuals who have nothing but poor impersonal government welfare to fall back on instead of supportive loving friends, family, and neighbors.
(Score: 1) by wisnoskij on Monday March 16 2015, @02:26PM
But getting people to actually vaccinate their kids would be more useful to society as a whole than ramming through a raft of massively restrictive legislation.
What? Based on the statistics, what would that save? Like 1 life per year? I have heard of dozens maybe a hundred getting measles, but with like a 1% chance of serious injury I do not think a single person got permanently damaged from that.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Thursday March 12 2015, @04:01AM
A world designed by insurance companies is not worth living in.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Thursday March 12 2015, @04:24AM
Oh, great, all we need is a bunch of Social Justice Warriors telling us not to kill ourselves! Look, don't you know we were RIGHT about Brown and Fergusen, and Tasers in the home, and Global Warming being a hoax? Why shouldn't we have the right to kill ourselves? As a proud American, I will have just go out and exercise my rights. Be right back. ... . . . ...!
(Justin Case, no worries, just a SJW having some fun, with people who could make fun about worse things. Suicide is not the answer! It makes your tax bracket go up! )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @05:08AM
I'm dead already, fuckers.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Thursday March 12 2015, @01:48PM
The correct response is actually "I'm dead already, you insensitive clod". Language, people.
That is all.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jbWolf on Thursday March 12 2015, @05:59AM
The best way to reduce suicide is to reduce the amount of actual warfare our soldiers see, allowing people to live their lives as they see fit without taking away their choices, having the opportunity to have meaning in their lives, and have an opportunity to be social with others. Having choices includes the choice to commit suicide. In short, I'm saying that having a reasonable out (including but not limited to a social network) reduces suicides.
Terry Pratchett [wikipedia.org] of Discworld fame is an advocate for assisted suicide / euthanasia [theguardian.com]. Given the opportunity, maybe he would take that choice at some point, but by not having that choice, I could easily see a person work themselves up into a frenzy and think "Oh no! I have to do something right now before I lose my faculties and turn into a drooling vegetable!" And if they do something about it, we've lost that precious time with them that we could have otherwise had. Or they could fail in their attempt and turn their lives into a living nightmare.
Yes, sometimes people work themselves into a frenzy and have the sudden impulse to end their life but it is also well known people who commit suicide often give signs. Personally, I believe most people who "don't give signs" actually do. I think it is very rare that people don't give signs; many people just don't know how to read them.
I once had a friend back in high school who I thought was out of the danger zone for committing suicide. He had successfully built up a social network and was in a better place mentally than he was two years before when we became friends. He was the outcast of the school and was routinely bullied until we became friends. (Then we were both outcasts, but that's another story.) One day, I got the phone call out the blue saying he had a gun and wanted to use it on himself. I talked him out of it. For years, I wasn't sure if he was looking for attention (a trait he had) or if he was really suicidal. He thanked me ten years later for helping him and only then did I realize how close I was to losing one of my best friends. Because of the relationship we had at the time and my inexperience with those kinds of scenarios, I hadn't read the signs properly.
My point is that I don't believe in removing the means to suicide. I believe in removing the paths that encourage it. There were several paths that encouraged my friend to that point, but fortunately, my friend knew of another path (me) and he utilized it. Taking choices away from people (the choice to drive, the choice to eat what you want, the choice to vote for a good candidate, the choices of 1000 other things) is a path that will ultimately encourage suicide. Taking away the choices for suicide is actually giving people another reason to try it.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @06:14AM
> The best way to reduce suicide is to reduce the amount of actual warfare our soldiers see,
That sounds like putting the cart before the horse.
It looks like somewhere on the order of 500-1000 suicides per year, [latimes.com] are veterans suffering from war-related problems. That's definitely higher per capita than for civilians but out of roughly 41,000 total suicides still just about 3% on the high side.
(Score: 2) by TLA on Thursday March 12 2015, @08:00AM
is that PTSD-related suicide, or is it drug induced?
Two different things, here. Most PTSD is a: injurious (maliciously inflicted), in which case it should more properly be called PTSI (Post Traumatic Stress Injury, and I'll give this a treatment in my journal) and b: undiagnosed. It happens more often with parents who, for one reason or another, have lost their children, than it does with combat veterans. Drugs which can and have been shown to, cause suicidal tendencies are 99.9% prescription - fluoxetine (better known by its trade name "Prozac"), for one. Read the warning on that SSRI (psychotropic). It says "May cause mania and suicidal tendencies". What?? It's supposed to STOP suicidal tendencies! Oh, it gets better, it's supposed to treat eating disorders. "May cause eating disorders". WHAT?? "May cause depression". Well, fuck me. I don't think I need go on with this, point made: the psychohealth industry is majorly fucked up.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @03:21PM
> is that PTSD-related suicide, or is it drug induced?
Read the link why don't you?
I mean you could have had your answer in less time than it took you to write out that paragraph.
Or is it that you don't care about the answer and just wanted to rant about something?
(Score: 2) by jbWolf on Thursday March 12 2015, @03:33PM
Damn it. He died today. I wrote this comment a few hours before anyone knew he had died. I guess he won't take that opportunity after all.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by t-3 on Thursday March 12 2015, @07:18AM
Why can't these assholes just let people do as they please with their own own lives? Seriously, suicidal people are not anyone else's problem. Life is not a gift, ending your own should not be a crime. Sure, people feel bad when people they know kill themselves, but IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. Get over your fear of death and stop selfishly trying to control others so you can hide from all the scary things in the world.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TLA on Thursday March 12 2015, @07:47AM
my best friend garotted himself with a bootlace. Hanging oneself is the most difficult method of suicide because it is an entirely deliberate act from beginning to end, at any point up until that ligature goes taut you can stop it. He was found by his dad, prone against the wall, one end of the lace in one hand, the other end in a sliding knot. They say suicide is painless. I'm still grieving for him, and it's nearly a decade later.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 12 2015, @08:32AM
My condolences. Look, people. we are talking about real people's lives here, and it is best to be respectful.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Thursday March 12 2015, @08:36AM
I have some issues with this article.
First of all, I think it is essential to distinguish between "heat-of-the-moment"-suicide motivated by a momentary set back (lost love, lost job etc.) and conscious, thought-through decisions for situations where the sum of all future expectations is negative (e.g. untreatable diseases causing terrible pain, or if someone makes a conscious decision after being diagnosed with some degenerative disease, when he wants people to just remember him healthy; in German there is a term "Bilanzsuizid" [wikipedia.org]; unfortunately wikipedia doesn't offer a translated article, and I wasn't able to find an English equivalent to the term. Word-by-word it would be "balance-suicide", but that could be mistaken as a jumping tightrope-artist).
Second, there is some anecdotal evidence that people regret the act after it was initiated. Beside the fact that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily relevant, it does not consider the question if the candidate regretted the failure of his suicide some weeks/months/years later. Even if, in the moment of letting go and the next hours/days afterwards they are scared and think it was a mistake, there is a chance that later on they only regret it didn't work.
Also, even if they feel a strong regret the moment they initiate the suicide, this should be a short period of regret. But if they want to commit a well thought-through balance-suicide and they don't get the chance, they might life with regret for years or decades.
Third, even if we consider suicide as heat-of-a-moment actions a risk rather than a choice, the question is, do we want to convert our all environment to a gigantic padded cell to mitigate the risk for those suicidal? Maybe we should allow some more risk to enter our lifes in order to learn to appreciate life more. We could safe a lot of money on safety-precautions, which could be invested on life-quality instead, to make/keep it worth living. E.g. we could provide some (more) social security for orphans and widows.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday March 12 2015, @08:46AM
Comic for this topic [amazingsuperpowers.com]
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @03:29PM
Beside the fact that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily relevant, it does not consider the question if the candidate regretted the failure of his suicide some weeks/months/years later. Even if, in the moment of letting go and the next hours/days afterwards they are scared and think it was a mistake, there is a chance that later on they only regret it didn't work.
I took the easy path and checked wikipedia. [wikipedia.org]
By one measure, the one year death rate after a failed suicide attempt is 1%. That's all deaths, not just suicides.
Another estimate is that following a failed suicide attempt, eventual death by suicide within 37 years is up to 15%.
That seems pretty persuasive that the overwhelming majority of suicides are heat-of-the-moment acts.
> the question is, do we want to convert our all environment to a gigantic padded cell to mitigate the risk for those suicidal?
That an artificial bifurcation of the choices. It isn't all or nothing, its nothing or better.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday March 12 2015, @09:04AM
Hey SoylentNews, if we're going to have the same story posted here as at Slashdot (albeit several days later) could we have an "import" function so we don't have to submit the same comments? ;)
Anyway:
Ken Baldwin, who jumped from the Golden Gate Bridge in 1985 and lived, told reporters that he knew as soon as he had jumped that he had made a terrible mistake. "From the instant I saw my hand leave the railing, I knew I wanted to live. I was terrified out of my skull." Baldwin was lucky to survive the 220 foot plunge into frigid waters. Ms. Barber tells another story: On a friend’s very first day as an emergency room physician, a patient was wheeled in, a young man who had shot himself in a suicide attempt. “He was begging the doctors to save him,” she says. But they could not.
I'm not quite sure why we were given these two anecdotes. How many people, after a failed suicide attempt, beg doctors to let them die? Did the guy in the second story continue to want to live, or did he revert to feeling suicidal later?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday March 12 2015, @09:43AM
I've attempted suicide several times. My most serious was in October 2010, when I aimed my car at a concrete highway overpass post at 100 miles per hour. My life was saved when I had a seizure - it took me a while to figure out that's what happened - and I lost control of the car, hit another car then failed to hit the post straight on.
My car was totalled but I was not injured in any way. Now I take public transit.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Thursday March 12 2015, @03:34PM
Just because you can find a few examples of people who did not want to own up to their decisions does not mean that we should take the option away from everyone.
“Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.”
― Mark Twain
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday March 13 2015, @06:12PM
Just an idea, how about reducing the factors that cause people to desire suicide?
Oh wait! then we have to rethink society.. and even think about others. Can't have that.