Golden Gate Jumpers--WARNING--very unpleasant topic

[AmateurScientist]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Introduction by moderator Luke T.: "The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." These words spoken by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey have often been paraphrased to "a nation is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens."

The Golden Gate Bridge. Architecture as art. A panoramic scene that has been made into a battle ground by the desperate and the hopeless.

Moral obligations vs. art. Where does one supercede the other? How much power should a society exert to save the desperate and the hopeless? What right does a society have to do so?

Link to original topic:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=11396
</font></td></tr></table>




The current issue of The New Yorker features a provocative piece about the darker side of the magnificent Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco--its alarming history of attracting suicide jumpers. It presents several facts, profiles a few jumpers, including some rare survivors, and touches on the bridge's history, all in a matter of fact tone. Unquestionably, the author advocates for the erecting of a suicide barrier along the walkway on the bridge.

He notes that since its completion in 1937, more than 1200 persons are known to have killed themselves by jumping off the bridge 220 feet above the bay. Today, on average, someone jumps off about once every two weeks. It takes 4 seconds to hit the water, at about 75 miles per hour, with a force of 15,000 pounds per square inch. In short, hitting water at that speed is little different from hitting concrete. Only 26 persons are known to have survived the jump. Most suffer such severe internal injuries that they die immediately or within minutes. Some drown, as hitting feet first will usually plunge them so deeply into the 350 foot deep water that they haven't the chance to surface before drowning.

The barrier along the walkway is only 4 feet high, which allows most adults easy access to climbing over it and onto a 32" wide beam known as "the chord." From there it's a simple jump to oblivion. It seems reasonable to conclude that erecting some barrier to prevent persons from getting to the chord easily would greatly diminish the number of successful jumpers from the bridge.

Surprisingly, to a non-San Franciscan like me, the issue of a suicide barrier is highly controversial. It has met with so much resistance by the public and the board which oversees the bridge, that it has been shot down again and again. The most common objection is that it would mar the aesthetics of the beautiful bridge.

Any thoughts, especially from Bay-area people?

AS

[Mr Manifesto]

Suicide is a matter of personal choice. Why deny someone the right to decide when to end their life?

They have barriers on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It isn't pleasant, but if nothing else, it's another deterrant to keep people from chucking rocks at the ships below.

[reprise]

As someone who lives in a country which has a number of bridges from which it's perfectly possible to jump to one's death, I think that someone who's determined to do so at a specific location will probably do so no matter how high you make the barriers. How high are the barriers on tall buildings in the US? I suspect that they're only high enough to prevent people being swept off by the wind or tumbling to their death if they trip.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Suicide is a matter of personal choice. Why deny someone the right to decide when to end their life?

They have barriers on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It isn't pleasant, but if nothing else, it's another deterrant to keep people from chucking rocks at the ships below.

The dropping things on traffic passing underneath is also a good reason for railway and motorway bridges to have higher barriers.

[tim]

We are a bit more civilized over here. The favourite suicide jumping point is a cliff in the south coast called Beachy Head.
There's a pub nearby where potential suicides often stop to renew their courage. The landlord says he can often spot them - they're frequently alone and rather taciturn. He does what he can to alert the police and so on when that happens, but a lot slip by him. How he keeps going I don't know.

[reprise]

Sydneysiders seem to prefer a jump from The Gap (a cliff) onto the rocks below rather than a jump from the Harbour Bridge to the water below.

[Graham]

Originally posted by tim
We are a bit more civilized over here. The favourite suicide jumping point is a cliff in the south coast called Beachy Head.
There's a pub nearby where potential suicides often stop to renew their courage. The landlord says he can often spot them - they're frequently alone and rather taciturn. He does what he can to alert the police and so on when that happens, but a lot slip by him. How he keeps going I don't know.

There was an article about this in the Sunday Times a while back, an update on an original article about ten years, I think, before.

Researching for the original article, the reporter went out to the cliffs and there's this distraught-looking girl standing around. He called the police but I think he had to physically hold her back from the cliff's edge two or three times before they arrived.

She was still alive ten years later and much happier, though IIRC still on medcation and seeing a shrink.

If I was in his place, I would do the same, Mr Manifesto's precious rights aside, people do stupid things sometimes and for stupid reasons that they might regret later - if they get the chance.

Graham

[AmateurScientist]

Thanks for your replies. Actually, I'm more interested in views on the merits of building an effective barrier to prevent suicides from the Golden Gate Bridge. Making it very hard to get to the edge could greatly reduce or even eliminate suicides from the bridge.

I understand that an incidence of suicide in any large population is inevitable. Indeed, more people die at their own hand each year than at the hand of another.

The fact remains, however, than many suicides are the result of acute crises. When they can successfully ride out their crises, those who are momentarily inclined to kill themselves usually will not. Many suiciders succeed because an attractive means is readily available. Something about the Goldern Gate Bridge makes it the most attractive suicide spot in the world. It seems reasonable to try to take reasonable measures to stem the occurrence of such a grisly event.

What's wrong with trying to make a handy means less available? What's wrong with suicide prevention?

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Suicide is a matter of personal choice. Why deny someone the right to decide when to end their life?


Although I'm rather appalled at such a crass remark, I think you do have a somewhat valid point.

I believe in personal autonomy, and I suppose inherent in that concept is the right to decide if and when to end one's own life.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of suicides are committed by persons suffering from the throes of depression. Depression is a terrible illness, and it causes its sufferers to have a distorted perception of their own problems and their own self-worth. It is highly treatable in most cases, and although it can be chronic, it is transitory in nature.

When not suffering from the effects of depression, very few people will actually try to kill themselves, those in extreme or chronic severe physical pain notwithstanding.

If depression is so treatable, and those suffering from it do not perceive their own problems rationally, it makes perfect sense to take reasonable measures to influence them not to end their lives while depressed. It's simply a manifestation of a gross misunderstanding of suicide and depression, or a gross callousness towards the sanctity of life, for someone to shrug one's shoulders at the issue and declare that it's their choice to kill themselves if they want to.

AS

[reprise]

I came across an article about half an hour ago about another bridge (I'll track it down again in a minute) at which 500 or so people had been talked out of jumping. Well over 400 of those people were still alive 10 years later, and I'm wondering if it was perhaps the human contact which made them change their minds rather than the just immediate thwarting of their intentions. I'm wondering whether suicide prevention barriers would simply lead to people committing suicide at a different location, where human intervention seems to a significant chance that they might not commit suicide at all.

FWIW, I think people who attempt to commit suicide at public locations probably need totally different types of intervention than those who privately attempt suicide.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by reprise
I came across an article about half an hour ago about another bridge (I'll track it down again in a minute) at which 500 or so people had been talked out of jumping. Well over 400 of those people were still alive 10 years later, and I'm wondering if it was perhaps the human contact which made them change their minds rather than the just immediate thwarting of their intentions. I'm wondering whether suicide prevention barriers would simply lead to people committing suicide at a different location, where human intervention seems to a significant chance that they might not commit suicide at all.

FWIW, I think people who attempt to commit suicide at public locations probably need totally different types of intervention than those who privately attempt suicide.

You may be onto something there. The article in The New Yorker mentions similar statistics and makes the same point about thwarted suiciders still being around many years later.

It also mentions the poignant tale of a man in his mid-thirties who jumped and left a note at his home saying, "If just one person smiles at me on the way to the bridge or at the bridge, then I won't do it," or words to that effect. The human connection does indeed seem to play a large role in preventing some crisis suicides. Perhaps the converse is also true: the absence of sufficient human connections to ground someone can lead some sufferers of depression to conclude that the best means of ending their suffering is death.

AS

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by reprise
Sydneysiders seem to prefer a jump from The Gap (a cliff) onto the rocks below rather than a jump from the Harbour Bridge to the water below.

Good place to dispose of recalcitrant models, too.

[Zep]

For what it's worth, here's a very recent picture I took while on the Sydney Harbour Bridge (while I was NOT jumping but going to the pub). The "jumper prevention" barrier is shown lower right, and it is quite significant as can be seen.

[Graham]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

It also mentions the poignant tale of a man in his mid-thirties who jumped and left a note at his home saying, "If just one person smiles at me on the way to the bridge or at the bridge, then I won't do it," or words to that effect. The human connection does indeed seem to play a large role in preventing some crisis suicides. Perhaps the converse is also true: the absence of sufficient human connections to ground someone can lead some sufferers of depression to conclude that the best means of ending their suffering is death.

AS

It strikes me that even if a suicide barrier only had the effect of delaying the person while they climbed over it or of causing them to head off somewhere else to kill themselves then at least it would increase the available time for someone to smile at them, so to speak.

The Sydney Harbour arrangement is terribly ugly though - surely they could come up with something better than that?

Graham

[reprise]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Good place to dispose of recalcitrant models, too.

You just reminded me that the media seems to have lost interest in when René Rivkin will resume his weekend detention.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Graham


It strikes me that even if a suicide barrier only had the effect of delaying the person while they climbed over it or of causing them to head off somewhere else to kill themselves then at least it would increase the available time for someone to smile at them, so to speak.

The Sydney Harbour arrangement is terribly ugly though - surely they could come up with something better than that?

Graham

Good point. I like your approach to the topic.

The Sydney Harbor Bridge barrier may be ugly from the bridge, but I don't think it detracts significantly from the aesthetics of the bridge from afar. Maybe there is a more pleasant alternative. I'm not engineer, so I can't help there.

That is precisely the objection opponents of a Golden Gate Bridge barrier have. Doesn't it seem a tad crass considering how attractive and accessible the bridge is to jumpers?

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by tim
We are a bit more civilized over here. The favourite suicide jumping point is a cliff in the south coast called Beachy Head.
There's a pub nearby where potential suicides often stop to renew their courage. The landlord says he can often spot them - they're frequently alone and rather taciturn. He does what he can to alert the police and so on when that happens, but a lot slip by him. How he keeps going I don't know.

I'm with you, Tim. I don't know how the landlord keeps it up either. That would be awfully depressing to see such people come in over and over, having a strong suspicion what they are about to do.

AS

[Graham]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Good point. I like your approach to the topic.

The Sydney Harbor Bridge barrier may be ugly from the bridge, but I don't think it detracts significantly from the aesthetics of the bridge from afar. Maybe there is a more pleasant alternative. I'm not engineer, so I can't help there.

That is precisely the objection opponents of a Golden Gate Bridge barrier have. Doesn't it seem a tad crass considering how attractive and accessible the bridge is to jumpers?

AS

Thank-you, I'm trying to see both sides.

It seems likely that the sort of people who have nothing better to worry about than how a bridge looks are probably ill-equipped to empathise with an intently suicidal mind. It's a difference of perspectives that are simply worlds apart.

That said, it's a bit of a bugbear of mine that there seems to be a common acceptance that things have to be either beautiful or practical.

There has been something of a move away from this recently with the disguising of mobile 'phone masts as trees and church steeples. With modern manufacturing facilities it seems likely that we could make nice-looking things as easily and cheaply as ugly, so why not?

The same, IMO, applies to the suicide barriers - if they can be made no-so-ugly, then why make them ugly?

Graham

[reprise]

Originally posted by Graham


It strikes me that even if a suicide barrier only had the effect of delaying the person while they climbed over it or of causing them to head off somewhere else to kill themselves then at least it would increase the available time for someone to smile at them, so to speak.

The Sydney Harbour arrangement is terribly ugly though - surely they could come up with something better than that?

Graham

What's wrong with holding a competition (http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0303/ob/ob02_0303.html) for a new barrier design?

[schplurg]

This is pretty cool:

Virtual walk of the Golden Gate Bridge (http://www.goldengatebridge.org/photos/bridgewalk.html#)

You can "walk" on the bridge, climb up the towers, look down at the drop to the water, and side to side at the SF skyline. It is a neat bridge and if you've never been there, this provides a good close look at it. Make sure to scroll down in the little window as there are several images from each viewpoint.

I live in the SF bay area. I'd hate to see a fence there that would ruin the spectacular view. Most of us DO NOT jump. But it is one of the biggest attractions for jumpers in the world, which is disturbing. I wonder how many suicides it would actually deter. There are six other nearby bridges crossing the bay, some pretty damn high, though less "romantic". A new problem now is people that walk onto the railroad tracks and play chicken with an oncoming train. That is becoming a very popular way to go, according to some sites I just Googled.

I am pretty tired of our California government making a career out of helping out the idiots at the expense of everyone else. I think if I knew someone who jumped off the bridge I wouldn't blame it on the lack of a fence. A friend of mine who I hadn't seen in a few years shot himself a year ago, I'm not blaming Smith & Wesson. I know first-hand that suicide is a terrible thing, especially for the survivors. But do we have to "baby and dummy-proof" everything?

As for the above post, how do you make a suicide fence that is un-climbable, yet aesthetically pleasing? How do you keep it from ruining the view from the bridge for the huge amount of pedestrian traffic and sightseers? If that can be done, then I guess I'm all for it. Yes, witnessing a jumper wouldn't be pleasing (then again this IS America, where the Terminator is now CA's governor and where we love our violent movies), but most jumpers go at night I believe.

How about putting up gla$$ like in a hockey rink? I'd want that window washing contract! Then we'd have the great view, plus the added thrill of birds flying into it and killing THEMselves (which would anger the eco-freaks here, resulting in removal of the glass, nevermind).

By the way, what is so civilized about jumping off of a cliff? The existence of bridges is a testament of the "civilized man". Plus, many of the bodies are washed out of the bay and into the sea, rather than on a beach below. A suicider that leaves no mess behind...now THAT's civilized.

[Zep]

Point taken about the "beauty" angle, but please do remember that the image was taken looking ALONG the bridge. Here's another image showing the same barrier, taken looking directly at it (on the same walk as the last image, incidentally - I was after the sunset effect...). Not quite so ugly this time.

[Some Friggin Guy]

YOu know, another possibility is something I have seen with some bridges: Some kind of net-type catch-all undeneath. Not as "ugly" and more of a pain if some still tries to jump, but it might be a decent compromise.

[Denise]

Can society really stop people who want to kill themselves? If not the bridge then they may start their cars in their garage.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Denise
Can society really stop people who want to kill themselves? If not the bridge then they may start their cars in their garage.
Just making it harder will help a lot.

[Zep]

Probably the BEST way is to find out WHY people want to kill themselves at all in the first place, and then try to tackle those issues somehow.

[reprise]

I thought the solution the winner of the competition I linked to in my above post came up with was extremely innovative.

[Graham]

Originally posted by reprise
I thought the solution the winner of the competition I linked to in my above post came up with was extremely innovative.

I liked it too. The funny thing is, by the looks of it, it was a no more complicated work of engineering than the Sydney barrier shown above - proving my point nicely, if I do say so myself ;) .

Graham

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Zep
Probably the BEST way is to find out WHY people want to kill themselves at all in the first place, and then try to tackle those issues somehow.
the fence is cheaper

[Cain]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight.</font></td></tr></table>

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by reprise


You just reminded me that the media seems to have lost interest in when René Rivkin will resume his weekend detention.

You can only flog a dead horse so much. Or, to put it another way, Rene will resume detention when Christopher Skase is brought to justice.

[shuize]

I remember a related issue coming up a year or two ago in Seattle on one of the more crowded bridges (I don't know which one, I don't live there I just heard the story on the radio). Apparently a young woman suffering from mental illness and relationship problems climbed up on the bridge threatening to jump. She didn't immediately do so though and it tied up traffic for several hours. The controversy all started when the police finally started letting a trickle of cars through and some of the people, angry about being stuck in their cars for hours, yelled at her to go ahead and jump already.

Naturally, lots of people who weren't stranded in their cars thought this was the just most insensitive thing they'd ever heard. But my question is, how much inconvenience must those of us who plan on sticking around for a while put up with for those who aren't quite sure if they're up to it or not? I don't blame the police for stopping traffic to try and talk her down. But I'm sure I'd be pretty pissed off if I had to sit in my car for several hours while the weak minded woman made up her mind.

In the same sense, how much uglier should we make the world in order to "suicide proof" it from people who can just as easily stick their heads in an oven?

[Kevin_Lowe]

I read a sci-fi novel where the people who ran a giant, self-sufficient building had installed a diving board on top of their building. Just for the jumpers.

(They also had a mechanical net that shot out and caught them if they jumped).

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shuize
I remember a related issue coming up a year or two ago in Seattle on one of the more crowded bridges (I don't which one, I don't live there I just heard the story on the radio). Apparently a young woman suffering from mental illness and relationship problems climbed up on the bridge threatening to jump. She didn't immediately do so though and it tied up traffic for several hours. The controversy all started when the police finally started letting a trickle of cars through and some of the people, angry about being stuck in their cars for hours, yelled at her to go ahead and jump already.

Naturally, lots of people who weren't stranded in their cars thought this was the just most insensitive thing they'd ever heard. But my question is, how much inconvenience must those of us who plan on sticking around for a while put up with for those who aren't quite sure if they're up to it or not? I don't blame the police for stopping traffic to try and talk her down. But I'm sure I'd be pretty pissed off if I had to sit in my car for several hours while the weak minded woman made up her mind.

In the same sense, how much uglier should we make the world in order to "suicide proof" it from people who can just as easily stick their heads in an oven?

Funny you should mention this. We had an episode recently where a person with a shotgun was holed up in a van. He had the radio on, tuned in to one of our local (and dumber) shock-jocks. The shock-jock, contrary to calls from police, kept taking calls from callers who said that he should blow his brains out.

Ya gotta love what people will do for a dollar.

Source- Media Watch (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s951203.htm) <--- interesting link, BTW. Read what some callers had to say! Feel the hate!

[Tony]

I agree with Mr. Manifesto.

[MoeFaux]

The Stratosphere in Las Vegas has made every effort to stop people from jumping. There's all sorts of security measures, from different fences to cameras to catch people who make it over them.
And people still manage to jump.
If I person is able bodied and has the will to do it, nothing is going to stop them. And why should we try and stop them anyway?

And least when someone is jumping off of a bridge, they're only harming themselves. When someone jumps off of a building, there's always the possibility that they will fall onto a person or car, killing someone else while killing themselves. In fact, I remember hearing something about this on the news recently where someone jumped off of an overpass and killed an innocent driver.

I'm against security measures. I am for suicide, and while we're on the topic, I'm for euthenasia as well.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
And why should we try and stop them anyway?

Why shouldn't we?

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

Why shouldn't we?

It's not our business.

[Luke T.]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight. The irony of deleting my own post for not being up to par is not lost on me.</font></td></tr></table>

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


It's not our business.
I disagree.


Suicidal tendencies sometimes is only temporary, and the lack of security will only make a bad day turn in to disaster.

And when some dies, a lot of money will be spend in finding the body, investigation etc etc. So in the long run the security measures will be much cheaper and ethical.:)

[Graham]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


It's not our business.

Nice.

If someone is depressed enough to want to kill themselves then they have a mental illness, it's as simple as that.

Note that I'm only referring to depression here - people do kill themselves for other reasons as well but that's another story.

Anyway, if you saw a deaf & blind person about to walk out in front of traffic, would you run to stop him or would you juct say "Hey, it's not my business"?

It's the same thing, IMO - neither the deaf/blind person nor the depressed person is adequetly equipped to make a decision.

Graham

[LuxFerum]

dammit I took 10 minutes to post and someone else post what I would say in a much better way. that sucks:(

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Denise
Can society really stop people who want to kill themselves? If not the bridge then they may start their cars in their garage.

Well, the simple answer is no. The more complicated one, is sometimes yes. There is something of an "attractive nuisance" (to borrow a term from premises liability law) quality to this particular bridge. That is not to say that it induces healthy people to want to kill themselves. Rather, the bridge itself provides severely depressed persons a very romantic and convenient method for doing the irreversible.

Stories involving persons who were successfully talked out of jumping from the bridge and who lived decades after that would lend support to the notion that making it harder to jump may indeed save a significant number of lives. Contrary to what a person seriously contemplating suicide might believe, these lives are indeed worth saving. They are just are worthy of saving as the lives of those who died at the hands of terrorists during the 9-11 attacks. Persons who kill themselves due to depression aren't bad or weak persons. They are ill. They deserve our compassion and empathy just as much as anyone dying of cancer does.

Some of these suicides must be regarded as suicides of opportunity, as many petty thefts are indeed crimes of opportunity. Take away the opportunity and perhaps you prevent the suicide. To be sure, any severely depressed person who is utterly intent on death as the only solution left to his problems can be resourceful enough to come up with dozens of ways to kill himself successfully without jumping off a bridge. Not all suicides fit that profile, however.

Suicide is a very complicated issue. Despite the view of many that each of has a "right" to kill himself, suicide always profoundly affects others. Those who leave behind family or friends or co-workers inevitably leave behind indelible emotional scars as well, many of them as deep as any emotional scar can be. Even homeless persons with no known family or friends scar the police, rescue, and hospital or morgue workers who clean up the aftermath.

Despite our modern view of ourselves as enlightened regarding many social issues, suicide is very much a taboo topic for serious discussion in most settings. Partly as a result of its being taboo, suicide, especially its direct and indirect causes, is profoundly misunderstood by most persons. Merely advocating that everyone has a right to do it does nothing to address the fact that it does a tremendous amount of harm to its "survivors" and to society at large. It does nothing to address that in most cases suicide is highly preventable.

I urge everyone who hasn't already done so to toss aside the familiar platitudes about suicide and to make some effort to study the issue seriously. It is every bit as much a public health problem as teenage pregnancy or Alzheimer's. Being crass about it will not make it go away or lessen the unimaginable impact it has on tens of thousands of families every year.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Graham


Nice.

If someone is depressed enough to want to kill themselves then they have a mental illness, it's as simple as that.

Note that I'm only referring to depression here - people do kill themselves for other reasons as well but that's another story.

Anyway, if you saw a deaf & blind person about to walk out in front of traffic, would you run to stop him or would you juct say "Hey, it's not my business"?

It's the same thing, IMO - neither the deaf/blind person nor the depressed person is adequetly equipped to make a decision.

Graham

Thanks Graham. It's good to see someone with some understanding of depression and suicide. It's also good to see someone with a compassionate view towards persons who are potential suiciders.

All of us are potentially vulnerable to depression. It is a terrible illness that wreaks havoc upon the concept of self. It distorts one's perceptions of one's own personal problems and transforms small, everyday obstacles into insurmountable barriers between normal life and the personal prison of a living hell. Sometimes, tragically, suicide becomes regarded by this now irrational mind as the only sensible alternative to living forever with insurmountable and horrifically painful problems.

Graham is spot on about his comparison to a deaf and blind person crossing the street in heavy traffic. Few would be so callous and uncaring as to dismiss the opportunity to prevent a tragedy in that circumstance. It's sad that so many persons so blithely dismiss suicide prevention measures.

AS

[Luke T.]

When I was suicidal, I considered two options: Gassing myself with the oven in my kitchen or jumping off the roof of one of the many hotels on the beachfront near where I live.

The gassing option seemed too risky. Might just end up brain damaged. Worse off. So the hotel roof option had the most drawing power.

Here I am today, seven years later, quite possibly the happiest, if not the luckiest, man alive.

Lots of things prevented me. All of them relating to the intervention of other people who gave a hoot about Luke T.

Including an anonymous waiter in a restaraunt one day who took one look at me and said to excuse him if he was stepping out of line but was I okay.

The articles people have referred to about people who were stopped from committing suicide who are alive and happy 10 years later don't have anything to do with barriers on bridges. Barriers don't keep a person alive. Other people do.

If I knew the hotel roofs had barriers on them, which they don't, I would have come up with another option. It is impossible to make the world suicide-proof.

I was not attracted to the hotel roofs on the oceanfront for their romanticism. I was attracted to the surety of success in my goal.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Graham


Nice.

If someone is depressed enough to want to kill themselves then they have a mental illness, it's as simple as that.

Note that I'm only referring to depression here - people do kill themselves for other reasons as well but that's another story.

Anyway, if you saw a deaf & blind person about to walk out in front of traffic, would you run to stop him or would you juct say "Hey, it's not my business"?

It's the same thing, IMO - neither the deaf/blind person nor the depressed person is adequetly equipped to make a decision.

Graham


Bull. A deaf or blind person in the street is not making a concious decision to be there.
If a person wishes to commit suicide, it's something they've thought about and decided. And the idea that a person can't make this decision on their own? That's preposterous. Ideas like that are what's holding cancer-striken people in pain with no hope to live back from ending their life peacefully.
Have you ever been suicidal? Have you ever thought about it? It's a decision you make, just like any other. I equate it to deciding what to have for breakfast. Toast or eggs? Should I continue life or not? It's a personal decision.
While I agree that people should be able to do it in a way that's not as inconvenient as jumpers, which as pointed out, drain tax dollars, there's no way that's it's something people shouldnt' be doing.
Are you sure your views aren't still being influenced by religion, where it's thought of to be a sin? (I'm not asking in a rude way, I'm really curious)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by MoeFaux



Bull. A deaf or blind person in the street is not making a concious decision to be there.
If a person wishes to commit suicide, it's something they've thought about and decided. And the idea that a person can't make this decision on their own? That's preposterous. Ideas like that are what's holding cancer-striken people in pain with no hope to live back from ending their life peacefully.
Have you ever been suicidal? Have you ever thought about it? It's a decision you make, just like any other. I equate it to deciding what to have for breakfast. Toast or eggs? Should I continue life or not? It's a personal decision.
While I agree that people should be able to do it in a way that's not as inconvenient as jumpers, which as pointed out, drain tax dollars, there's no way that's it's something people shouldnt' be doing.
Are you sure your views aren't still being influenced by religion, where it's thought of to be a sin? (I'm not asking in a rude way, I'm really curious)

I would have to say that my own decision to commit suicide was not made in a sane frame of mind. It was my constant obsession for months. I had flirted with the idea of suicide most of my life up to that point, but in 1996 there was no more flirting. It was the real deal.

Suicide is not a decision made in a rational state of mind. It is a solution way, way out of proportion to the problem. I believe every effort should be made to intervene and discourage a suicide.

I think you may be making the assumption that a suicide has weighed and exhausted all other options and there is no way out of their problem except death.

Depression is not an incurable disease like the cancer to which you compared it.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by MoeFaux

While I agree that people should be able to do it in a way that's not as inconvenient as jumpers, which as pointed out, drain tax dollars, there's no way that's it's something people shouldnt' be doing.

What about the people who cares about the suicidal? Isn't that a crime what he is doing to they?

[AmateurScientist]

Thanks, Luke, for your perspective. I agree completely that it is impossible to make the world suicide proof. That's not really the idea behind the barriers. It is possible to greatly reduce or even eliminate the incidence of suicides from jumpers from the bridge.

Your explanation of being resourceful in finding an effective means of ending it is applicable. Nevertheless, I do believe there are cases in which some depressed persons are seduced, for lack of a better word, by the romantic notion of a spectacular death. Jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge has a mythic quality to it and could be seductive under the right circumstances. Stemming such jumps could indeed lead to some persons, at least, not going through with it.

As you indicate, and as I noted above, those who are intent on killing themselves are not bound by any physical preventative measures taken by others. One's own imagination and the physical durability of the human body are the only restraints on the means of killing one's self. Human intervention is surely the most potent and effective prevention measure. Unfortunately, it is terribly hard to implement from a societal perspective, whereas reasonable physical measures such as bridge barriers are relatively easy to take. It's not an either-or proposition. One can make human intervention a priority and also take reasonable physical measures to prevent suicide.

AS

[gnome]

Originally posted by Tony
I agree with Mr. Manifesto.

I never thought I'd see this...! Now we're in for it... riots on the street, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

[Graham]

Originally posted by MoeFaux



Bull. A deaf or blind person in the street is not making a concious decision to be there.
If a person wishes to commit suicide, it's something they've thought about and decided. And the idea that a person can't make this decision on their own? That's preposterous. Ideas like that are what's holding cancer-striken people in pain with no hope to live back from ending their life peacefully.
Have you ever been suicidal? Have you ever thought about it? It's a decision you make, just like any other. I equate it to deciding what to have for breakfast. Toast or eggs? Should I continue life or not? It's a personal decision.
While I agree that people should be able to do it in a way that's not as inconvenient as jumpers, which as pointed out, drain tax dollars, there's no way that's it's something people shouldnt' be doing.
Are you sure your views aren't still being influenced by religion, where it's thought of to be a sin? (I'm not asking in a rude way, I'm really curious)

I fear you're not listening or maybe I'm just not explaining myself.

Depression is a mental illness. A person who is seriously depressed is mentally ill.

Like a blind person, they are disabled - their brains are not working properly and are not performing the function that they should, just as a blind person's eyes are not performing the function the they should.

In fact, you might say that the deaf/blind person has made a far more conscious decision to be there than the mentally ill person. A mentally ill person is not in a position to make reasonable decisions and could therefore be said to be less responsible for ending up in danger than a sane, rational, blind/person who should have known better than to try and cross the street by himself. By your reasoning, if anyone deserves to be let die it's the blind person.

I am not opposed to euthenasia nor am I opposed to suicide in other circumstances (terminal and painful illness, for instance). I am not opposed to rational, informed decisions about anyhting, generally speaking.

Religion is not a factor in this, for me. What I am basing my opinions on is simply my experience of depression in myself and others.

Graham

[Charlie Monoxide]

All sorts of nasty things happen on Golden Gate bridge. I proposed to my wife on the bridge, one day crossing over while we were stuck in traffic. About 3 or 4 months later we got married on the bridge. It was a small affair with about a dozen people. To bad we're now divorced. If I get suicidal I'll consider GG.

Charlie (life's too good to think about death) Monoxide

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Thanks, Luke, for your perspective. I agree completely that it is impossible to make the world suicide proof. That's not really the idea behind the barriers. It is possible to great reduce or even eliminate the incidence of suicides from jumpers from the bridge.

Your explanation of being resourceful in finding an effective means of ending it is applicable. Nevertheless, I do believe there are cases in which some depressed persons are seduced, for lack of a better word, by the romantic notion of a spectacular death. Jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge has a mythic quality to it and could be seductive under the right circumstances. Stemming such jumps could indeed lead to some persons, at least, not going through with it.

As you indicate, and as I noted above, those who are intent on killing themselves are not bound by any physical preventative measures taken by others. One's own imagination and the physical durability of the human body are the only restraints on the means of killing one's self. Human interventive is surely the most potent and effective prevention measure. Unfortunately, it is terribly hard to implement from a societal perspective, whereas reasonable physical measures such as bridge barriers are relatively easy to take. It's not an either-or proposition. One can make human intervention a priority and also take reasonable physical measures to prevent suicide.

AS

I think the reporting on the suicides on the Golden Gate bridge is influenced more by romanticism than the actual suicides themselves. Exactly what percentage of suicides in that city occur at the bridge? Is it really that big a deal?

These are things we must take into consideration.

I agree that some suicides at the bridge are probably drawn to the effect it makes. In the back of the mind of every suicide is probably the hope their death will cause a shock somewhere. But there are a lot of ways to cause a shock.

That wasn't the case for me. I just wanted it all to end. Didn't care how. Just wanted it to be fool-proof.

[Suezoled]

Have you ever been suicidal? Have you ever thought about it? It's a decision you make, just like any other. I equate it to deciding what to have for breakfast. Toast or eggs? Should I continue life or not? It's a personal decision.

It's a personal decision. However, bear in mind that (usually) when a person decides or tries to kill himself, it's because his capacity to cope with stresses (internal and external) has been flooded and outweighed by his emotional burden: pain, guilt, hopelessness, etc predominates.

Suicide is a sad decision and made even worse by people who are apathetic or angry. Since suicide is, in most societies, a social taboo, people recoil and even lash out at the suicidal person, unburdening their own fears and guilt onto the other person.

At least that's what I read.

http://www.metanoia.org/suicide/

[TruthSeeker]

I live in Toronto where we recently spent several million dollars to erect a suicide barrier on one of our bridges (I'll see if I can find an image). I was part of the group who protested the barrier.

Why?

1) those millions of dollars could have been better spent on crisis intervention services such as those described by LukeT. In fact, it was found that installing pay phones at either end of the bridge with the numbers for crisis lines prominently displayed significantly reduced the incidence of suicides from that bridge. I know of several cases (having been a crisis worker in a previous life) of people calling the line while at the bridge and talking to the worker until help arrived. The city was not interested in expanding such services.

2) the barrier is a superficial preventative that merely assuages the city's sense of responsibility after a well known suicide from the bridge. There is nothing to stop people from walking about 5 minutes to the nearest subway and jumping, which in fact is far more common than people jumping off bridges here. Why wasn't a suicide barrier built on the subway?

3) It is ugly and ruins a beautiful view that I often used to enjoy during my morning walk to work.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by MoeFaux



Bull. A deaf or blind person in the street is not making a concious decision to be there.
If a person wishes to commit suicide, it's something they've thought about and decided. And the idea that a person can't make this decision on their own? That's preposterous. Ideas like that are what's holding cancer-striken people in pain with no hope to live back from ending their life peacefully.
Have you ever been suicidal? Have you ever thought about it? It's a decision you make, just like any other. I equate it to deciding what to have for breakfast. Toast or eggs? Should I continue life or not? It's a personal decision.
While I agree that people should be able to do it in a way that's not as inconvenient as jumpers, which as pointed out, drain tax dollars, there's no way that's it's something people shouldnt' be doing.
Are you sure your views aren't still being influenced by religion, where it's thought of to be a sin? (I'm not asking in a rude way, I'm really curious)

I agree with Luke's response to this post.

MoeFaux, I agree that suicide, even doctor-assisted suicide, by terminally ill persons of sound mind is something which should be available. Nevertheless, merely focusing on that class of persons ignores the huge class of persons, many of them teenagers and young adults, who are otherwise healthy except for the effects of depression. It can be an insidious illness, or it can haunt its sufferers for a lifetime.

The issue here has nothing to do with allowing terminally ill persons to end their suffering under their own dignified terms. This is about taking reasonable measures to prevent severely depressed persons, most of whom are very treatable and can recover to lead normal, healthy lives, from taking the irreversible step of leaping from a landmark to their gruesome deaths.

I would argue that no one has any "right" to do that. It does severely impact other persons.

Furthermore, as Luke aptly explained, deciding to kill one's self is hardly as routine or lightly made as the decision to have eggs and bacon for breakfast. It is a profound decision, sometimes made after years of contemplation, sometimes on the spur of the passionate moment. It is utterly irreversible and profoundly consequential, unlike one's breakfast choice for a day.

Furthermore, when suicide is chosen by someone without a terminal illness, it is nearly always chosen as an irrational alternative to living. The decision to kill one's self, if made by a depressed person, is one made by a mind which is ill, even if only momentarily.

These things are all true regardless of one's religious beliefs or lack thereof.

AS

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I live in Toronto where we recently spent several million dollars to erect a suicide barrier on one of our bridges (I'll see if I can find an image). I was part of the group who protested the barrier.

I would be curious to see the numbers for suicide rates in your city before and after the barrier was installed.


1) those millions of dollars could have been better spent on crisis intervention services such as those described by LukeT. In fact, it was found that installing pay phones at either end of the bridge with the numbers for crisis lines prominently displayed significantly reduced the incidence of suicides from that bridge. I know of several cases (having been a crisis worker in a previous life) of people calling the line while at the bridge and talking to the worker until help arrived. The city was not interested in expanding such services.

I was just thinking this very thing. Phone numbers for crisis hot-lines posted on the bridge. Good idea.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I would be curious to see the numbers for suicide rates in your city before and after the barrier was installed.




I was just thinking this very thing. Phone numbers for crisis hot-lines posted on the bridge. Good idea.


Too soon for numbers. It's just been completed in the last few months although I heard anecdotally that there has already been one suicide despite the barrier.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I live in Toronto where we recently spent several million dollars to erect a suicide barrier on one of our bridges (I'll see if I can find an image). I was part of the group who protested the barrier.

Why?

1) those millions of dollars could have been better spent on crisis intervention services such as those described by LukeT. In fact, it was found that installing pay phones at either end of the bridge with the numbers for crisis lines prominently displayed significantly reduced the incidence of suicides from that bridge. I know of several cases (having been a crisis worker in a previous life) of people calling the line while at the bridge and talking to the worker until help arrived. The city was not interested in expanding such services.

2) the barrier is a superficial preventative that merely assuages the city's sense of responsibility after a well known suicide from the bridge. There is nothing to stop people from walking about 5 minutes to the nearest subway and jumping, which in fact is far more common than people jumping off bridges here. Why wasn't a suicide barrier built on the subway?

3) It is ugly and ruins a beautiful view that I often used to enjoy during my morning walk to work.

Finally, a rational and compassionate argument against the barriers. Thanks, Truthseeker. I hadn't thought of that as an alternative.

That's very thought provoking.

AS

[Luke T.]

If a suicide went down to the bridge to jump and found a barrier in the way, would that bum him out? ;)

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I would have to say that my own decision to commit suicide was not made in a sane frame of mind. It was my constant obsession for months. I had flirted with the idea of suicide most of my life up to that point, but in 1996 there was no more flirting. It was the real deal.

Suicide is not a decision made in a rational state of mind. It is a solution way, way out of proportion to the problem. I believe every effort should be made to intervene and discourage a suicide.

I think you may be making the assumption that a suicide has weighed and exhausted all other options and there is no way out of their problem except death.

Depression is not an incurable disease like the cancer to which you compared it.

First, let me say that I'm very glad you didn't do it.

Second, I'll say that I'm not making these statements without any idea of being suicidal is like. There have been two times in my life where I was very serious about it. The first, I was in a very bad situation with very bad parents, and there really was no hope. But I didn't do it, and I eventually got away.
The second time I decided to do it was very rash, I was very upset, but I was going to do it. A dear friend interviened, and in the morning, I was glad I hadn't done it.
All my statements are based on a world were people look out for one another. I would certainly hope a stranger would ask if someone was all right if they saw a very upset person. And that's what happened for you.
And I would hope that a suicidal person has examinied other options.
But what if there really isn't any hope? I'll argue until the cows come home for the right to death for medical cases.

In cases where it's just plain stupidity, youth, or rash thinking, I would assume that a family member or SOMEONE would say something.

But I still really, really want people who want to jump to be able to jump. I mean, can you see my point? I'm playing devils advocate, but there's a lot of what I believe behind it.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by MoeFaux

But I still really, really want people who want to jump to be able to jump. I mean, can you see my point? I'm playing devils advocate, but there's a lot of what I believe behind it.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a situation where death is the best solution to a problem outside of a terminal illness. I certainly can't think of anything where the facilitation of suicide is called for.

If someone has reached the point where there isn't another person who cares about them or willing to intervene on their behalf, I believe they didn't get to that point through no fault of their own. To become totally isolated from the world takes some real effort on the part of the isolated one. A suicide begins long before the death.

But no one is so far gone they are beyond salvage. A least one barricade, whether physical, emotional or spiritual, must be placed in their path before they jump. If necessary, they must be tackled to the ground. They must be rescued from themselves.

If we are obligated to help a person whose life is in jeopardy from another human being to the point of using force, then we are obligated to help a person whose life is in jeopardy from themselves.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
But I still really, really want people who want to jump to be able to jump. I mean, can you see my point? I'm playing devils advocate, but there's a lot of what I believe behind it.
In that case I think that you are in favor of all kinds of drugs should be liberated.

I think that is counterproductive. We should have a safer environment. We should be able to make some mistakes and not die from it.

If we can make it safer why not do it? That is not taking his right to kill himself. He will just have to do it somewhere else.

[Graham]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


First, let me say that I'm very glad you didn't do it.

<snip>

But I still really, really want people who want to jump to be able to jump. I mean, can you see my point? I'm playing devils advocate, but there's a lot of what I believe behind it.

For what it's worth, I'm glad you didn't do it either.

To address your final point though, the common consensus here seems to be that if someone really, really wants to kill themselves then these barriers won't prevent them - they'll climb over, go somewhere else or whatever.

Insofar as they work at all then, the barriers only prevent those people from jumping who don't really want to jump anyway.

Therefore, the barriers cannot be said to be impinging on anyone's freedom. At worst, they are merely causing a degree of inconvenience to the determined suiciders - which seems a small price to pay to save the others.

Graham

[Girl 6]

Wow... I'd like to comment on this since I do live in the Bay Area and have many times walked or driven over the Golden Gate Bridge.

I cannot see any way to put up a barrier without affecting the spectacular views and thus imposing a "morality" on everyone else. This is the same kind of situation we are faced with on a daily basis when working with groups of people. Do you impose laws to restrict everyone's freedoms just to protect the one individual from themself? It's a hard question. In fact, we faced that here on this forum not so long ago with the imposition of rules, etc... But, I digress.

Also, there ARE phones on each end of the bridge. They are specifically marked as phones that people can use if they are contemplating suicide.

I hadn't considered the possibility that people who contemplate suicide are mentally ill. Is that generally true? If so, then, will the smile of any one individual REALLY make a difference?

On the bigger issue of suicide. If the people who committed the act are NOT mentally ill and are in fact in full possession of their faculties, then I consider them incredibly selfish more than anything. The destruction that such a person leaves when they commit suicide is not even quantifiable. No one is really truly alone in this world and to carry on as if you are the only one that matters in your sphere of influence is really quite selfish and reprehensible. The people that you leave behind can NEVER get over the event and more than likely, it will affect them in a negative way.

To offer an real life example... One of my ex-boyfriends decided that he wanted to commit suicide because I was leaving him. When I found out I rushed over to his car and did EVERYTHING in my power to prevent it. He even had the razors ready to go. I won't go into details, but he didn't go through with it. However, to this day, I cannot EVER wipe the feeling of helplessness, fear, and despair that come over me whenever I think about him. The whole incident has affected me for life and not necessarily for the positive.

As much disdain as I may have for such individuals, I wouldn't hesitate for one second to help them NOT commit suicide. First, I'd do everything I could to prevent it. Next, they would get to feel my wrath as I point out to them how selfish they've been NOT to consider the people that do love and care about them. No man is an island.

A bigger question is why don't people smile at each other? I smile at strangers all of the time. If that simple act is all that is needed, then we should all just strive to do it.

{sigh} I think I've been rambling here... Please ask me any questions for clarification.

G6

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

In that case I think that you are in favor of all kinds of drugs should be liberated.

I think that is counterproductive. We should have a safer environment. We should be able to make some mistakes and not die from it.

If we can make it safer why not do it? That is not taking his right to kill himself. He will just have to do it somewhere else.

Yes. While I have never used drugs, I am in favor of them being legalized.

A safer environment? I'm wary of anyone saying something should be made "safer". Thanks to a "safer environment", I can't greet my friends at the gate at the airport.
The only saftey measures I'm for one bridges are the ones that are already in place - structural integrity checks, railings so people don't fall off when just walking by, and so cars don't just drive off. But there will just be more and more money spent to keep people who want to jump from jumping. I don't know if it's worth it.
Perhaps, as suggested before, money would be better spent in suicide hotlines.

[roger]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Finally, a rational and compassionate argument against the barriers. Thanks, Truthseeker. I hadn't thought of that as an alternative.

That's very thought provoking.

AS
I second that sentiment.

Here in DC we have some high bridges w/ no guard. We do have "suicide" phones - free phones that connect you directly with a crisis hotline.

Me, I'm a fan for liberty and lack of intrusion from the government, despite the costs. I hope that I am not derailing the thread, but a few years ago I was at an outdoor concert on the georgetown canal, which is on federal land. I was leaning against one of the fence posts that line the canal, my entire body at least a foot from the canal. A ranger came by and made everyone who was doing it to move. I really, really don't want the government "looking after" me like that.

The suicide barrier is somewhat different, in that it is trying to stop someone from deliberately hurting themselves, whereas my anecdote is about the government trying to stop someone from accidentally hurting themselves (lets be honest - trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit).

I have sympathy for trying to stop the jumpers - I've done my own walk to a high bridge that was intended to be one way, but I don't want to live in a world (don't take literally) where we destroy the beauty, and otherwise impose onerous restrictions on the majority. Especially when there are better ways to spend the money to achieve a longer term solution (crisis phones, pamplets, whatever).

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Graham



Insofar as they work at all then, the barriers only prevent those people from jumping who don't really want to jump anyway.



Graham

Yes, that may be true. But I think I'm still against them.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


Yes. While I have never used drugs, I am in favor of them being legalized.

A safer environment? I'm wary of anyone saying something should be made "safer". Thanks to a "safer environment", I can't greet my friends at the gate at the airport.
The only saftey measures I'm for one bridges are the ones that are already in place - structural integrity checks, railings so people don't fall off when just walking by, and so cars don't just drive off. But there will just be more and more money spent to keep people who want to jump from jumping. I don't know if it's worth it.
Perhaps, as suggested before, money would be better spent in suicide hotlines.

I have to agree. These things tend to start escalating and before you know it, you won't be able to see a thing when you walk across a bridge.

The best prevention starts with all of us.

G6

[MoeFaux]

I also want to say that I disagree with the idea that only mentally ill people commit suicide. There's also people who have no hope.

I'll tell you, I was in an awful situation as a child. There was no one to help me, no counselor or school official could make my life better. I'm on file only twice with CPS, they couln't help me either. There was NO hope. The only hint of relief was thinking that in 4 years I'd be away from my parents, but that didn't make everyday life any easier.
I was not sexually abused. I wasn't even really physically abused, not enough for me to be put in foster care. But my life was a living hell. It had nothing to do with my mental state, it was just being in a very bad situation.
What about people worse off than I was? There's horrible injustice done in the world, and families doing awful things to each other. Sometimes there's just no hope. It's not mental illness, just no where else to turn.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


Yes, that may be true. But I think I'm still against them.

This is one of those situations where two people can be in agreement on an issue, but for different reasons.

I gather you are against barriers because you feel suicidal people should be free to kill themselves. I am against barriers because I am not convinced they affect the rate of suicide in any way and therefore a waste of money that could be better spent.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Girl 6

Also, there ARE phones on each end of the bridge. They are specifically marked as phones that people can use if they are contemplating suicide.


Thanks, G6, for kindly responding and for this tidbit of information. It is good to know phones already exist there. Apparently, they do not prevent all suicides on the bridge, although it is comforting to know that perhaps they deter some. It would be helpful to have statistics on usage of the phones by those contemplating jumping (I'm not asking you to find them; I'm just thinking aloud).



I hadn't considered the possibility that people who contemplate suicide are mentally ill. Is that generally true? If so, then, will the smile of any one individual REALLY make a difference?


You are not alone. I suspect most people do not understand how anyone could be driven to take his own life.

Depression is a very common mental illness. Being depressed doesn't necessarily mean one is "crazy" or irrational in general. Depression does cause one to have an exaggerated and irrational view of one's own problems, however.

Here's a link to a page on NAMI's website about a documentary film shown on HBO about suicide. I saw it some time ago and it was heartbreaking and riveting at the same time. The link provides a capsule version of some helpful facts, and also allow anyone interested to peruse the NAMI site about the topic, or other topics. There is a lot of information available for anyone willing to look for it.


NAMI link (http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/Press_Room1/20011/March_2001/NAMI_Partners_with_HBO_for_Suicide_Education_and_P revention.htm)

People who kill themselves do not deserve contempt or disdain. They are almost always in unbearable emotional pain when they decide to kill themselves. They are worthy of compassion and empathy. Of course, their actions usually cause others much pain as well, but that is rarely the intent. The intent is almost always to bring an end to unbearable pain and suffering. On some level, it is selfish to dwell too much on the pain they cause others without considering how much pain persons who commit suicide were in at their deaths.

AS

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Luke T.


This is one of those situations where two people can be in agreement on an issue, but for different reasons.

I gather you are against barriers because you feel suicidal people should be free to kill themselves. I am against barriers because I am not convinced they affect the rate of suicide in any way and therefore a waste of money that could be better spent.

I agree with that statement as well.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
People who kill themselves do not deserve contempt or disdain. They are almost always in unbearable emotional pain when they decide to kill themselves. They are worthy of compassion and empathy. Of course, their actions usually cause others much pain as well, but that is rarely the intent. The intent is almost always to bring an end to unbearable pain and suffering. On some level, it is selfish to dwell too much on the pain they cause others without considering how much pain persons who commit suicide were in at their deaths.

AS

Of course, you're right, AmateurScientist. However, having been at the receiving end of such events, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I wouldn't be incredibly angry and disdainful towards those individuals.

My first reponse is always to have compassion, empathy, and concern. But, after that first response, let's just say that anger settles in. I will always be glad when someone I care for decides against suicide.

G6

[Luke T.]

I have to side with Girl6 on the selfishness of suicidal people. And that includes myself at the time of my suicidal period. Depression/suicide is the ultimate form of ego, in my opinion. And when ego is out of control, we really can't say that person is in full control of their sanity.

I would not pity a suicidal person, but that does not exclude compassion. Sometimes people don't know the difference.

[edited to add:] Many people who commit suicide have a particular "target" in mind. They want someone to be hurt by their actions. Girl6, or any other "target" are fully justified in their anger. But that anger is not healthy. Just know it isn't your fault.

[VicDaring]

Wow. Fascinating discussion.

Caught my eye, since I just got my first up-close-and-personal look at the GGB about a month ago.

My thoughts, for what they're worth:

The idea of building anti-suicide barriers on one specific bridge seems to me to just be a "suicide shifting" policy. It's saying, "We're not doing anything to decrease the overall suicide rate, you just can't do it in this one specific location." So more people will just jump off the Bay Bridge.

It's similar to the tax shifting practiced by state and federal government, where they reduce taxes as a popular political decision, but mandate programs and services without providing funding, forcing local governments to raise taxes.

You're still paying more taxes, you're just paying them here instead of over there.

People are still jumping off bridges, they're just doing it over there instead of here.

That make any sense?

As for suicide itself...Well, my guess is that nearly everyone has at least had the thought dance through their mind. I've always said I could never do the deed, just because maybe tomorrow is the day it all turns around. Would kinda suck to miss that, wouldn't it?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I also want to say that I disagree with the idea that only mentally ill people commit suicide. There's also people who have no hope.

I'll tell you, I was in an awful situation as a child. There was no one to help me, no counselor or school official could make my life better. I'm on file only twice with CPS, they couln't help me either. There was NO hope. The only hint of relief was thinking that in 4 years I'd be away from my parents, but that didn't make everyday life any easier.
I was not sexually abused. I wasn't even really physically abused, not enough for me to be put in foster care. But my life was a living hell. It had nothing to do with my mental state, it was just being in a very bad situation.
What about people worse off than I was? There's horrible injustice done in the world, and families doing awful things to each other. Sometimes there's just no hope. It's not mental illness, just no where else to turn.

It had nothing to do with your mental state? Don't you agree that your mental state can be influenced by your circumstances?

The feelings you describe are symptoms of depression. Feeling hopeless is one of its hallmarks.

Suicide is not a rational choice made by healthy persons. You don't have to call those making it "mentally ill" if you don't like that label. Regardless of how you label them, however, those choosing it are not well. They are not completely lucid and rational about their own predicaments.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I have to side with Girl6 on the selfishness of suicidal people. And that includes myself at the time of my suicidal period. Depression/suicide is the ultimate form of ego, in my opinion. And when ego is out of control, we really can't say that person is in full control of their sanity.

I would not pity a suicidal person, but that does not exclude compassion. Sometimes people don't know the difference.

[edited to add:] Many people who commit suicide have a particular "target" in mind. They want someone to be hurt by their actions. Girl6, or any other "target" are fully justified in their anger. But that anger is not healthy. Just know it isn't your fault.


I just don't think that's fair, Luke. You don't blame persons with cancer for their disease, do you? Suicidal ideations are nearly always the products of brains which are sick, even if only momentarily. Calling suicide selfish is due to a lack of understanding of the effects of depression on one's thought processes. I don't care if you have personal experience with it or not; your thoughts on the matter reflect a lack of understanding of the illness.

As to certain persons sometimes targeting others for the pain their suicides will cause, I think that is relatively rare. I don't doubt it happens. Suicide for spite, one might call it. I think you overestimate its importance or place, however. The vast majority of persons who kill themselves deliberately do it to stop their own pain and suffering, not to cause others to experience it. The literature and widely accepted studies tend to support this notion.

Although it's probably a natural and very common reaction to the suicide of a loved one to feel some guilt about it, no one else's actions are the proximate cause of a suicide victim's death. Feelings of despair and hopelessness are the cause. Those feelings are most often caused by depression, whether acute or chronic.

AS

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


It had nothing to do with your mental state? Don't you agree that your mental state can be influenced by your circumstances?

The feelings you describe are symptoms of depression. Feeling hopeless is one of its hallmarks.

Suicide is not a rational choice made by healthy persons. You don't have to call those making it "mentally ill" if you don't like that label. Regardless of how you label them, however, those choosing it are not well. They are not completely lucid and rational about their own predicaments.

AS

Oh yes, I'm sure there is situational depression, and I was most likely afflicted with it at the time.
But, I look back on the situation I was in, and there really was no hope. Even now, as a happy, healthy adult, it's a wonder to me that I ever made it through.
What I'm arguing is that maybe there isn't another choice for some people. Maybe the circumstances are so bad that the only way to escape is suicide. I think you ought to think of that before you say to someone "cheer up! you have so much to live for" while the IRS reposes their house or their dad is raping them.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


I just don't think that's fair, Luke. You don't blame persons with cancer for their disease, do you? Suicidal ideations are nearly always the products of brains which are sick, even if only momentarily. Calling suicide selfish is due to a lack of understanding of the effects of depression on one's thought processes. I don't care if you have personal experience with it or not; your thoughts on the matter reflect a lack of understanding of the illness.

I don't think it is unfair. Whether or not it is their fault, it is still an ego problem.

I certainly agree that some people may have a "chemical imbalance" which can be alleviated through a trial and error process of drugs. But they are only a beginning. Drugs don't help a person solve their problems or find ways to cope.

By "ego problem," I mean that a person is so self-centered they are incapable of seeing their problems in proper perspective. They are trapped in the belief their problems are special or somehow different from everyone else's or are unsolvable. Whether they came to that belief through their own conscious effort or through a chemical imbalance does not negate that truth.

We have talked about this before in the context of addicts/alcoholics and self-medication. Having worked with scores of addicts/alcoholics, I have more than my own personal experience with suicidal ideations to draw upon.

The best description to the solution for suicidal people I ever heard was in a federal prison from an inmate who had struggled with depression his entire life and had run the gamut of antidepressants. He said, "I finally realized I needed a spiritual solution and not a chemical one."

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


Oh yes, I'm sure there is situational depression, and I was most likely afflicted with it at the time.


That is very likely.


But, I look back on the situation I was in, and there really was no hope. Even now, as a happy, healthy adult, it's a wonder to me that I ever made it through.


Probably a common reaction to later reflections upon very difficult times. I don't think that necessarily means that there was no hope, as in no way to overcome your circumstances. Evidently, you did overcome them, or you wouldn't be here today.



What I'm arguing is that maybe there isn't another choice for some people. Maybe the circumstances are so bad that the only way to escape is suicide. I think you ought to think of that before you say to someone "cheer up! you have so much to live for" while the IRS reposes their house or their dad is raping them.

I would never be so insensitive as to tell a severely depressed person to "cheer up," as if they could simply will themselves out of it or that they heard never thought of that. Among other things, depression attacks one's will. Apathy and a profound lack of interest in or enthusiasm for what should be enjoyable or pleasurable activities is also one of its effects, and one of the symptoms knowledgeable doctors look for in making the appropriate clinical diagnosis. Severely depressed persons need understanding and comfort, not platitudes.

I cannot imagine many circumstances as dire or severe as those faced by the survivors of the 1972 plane crash in the Andes mountain in Chile that were the subjects of the book and movie entitled "Alive." Not only did those young soccer players have to face the dead bodies of their colleagues and fellow travelers, but they also faced the high likelihood of freezing or starving to death, and they ultimately cannibalized their dead to prevent it. Under those circumstances, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that the situation was utterly hopeless? In fact, it wasn't, improbable as a few of them making it to civilization to guide rescuers to the wreckage was.

Now, contrast that with a troubled teen with difficult and painful circumstances at home who sees no way out. Most likely, the failure to appreciate that there are indeed ways out is due to imperfect information and/or irrational thinking.

My point is that usually those concluding their circumstances are hopeless are reaching such a conclusion due to distorted perceptions about themselves and their circumstances. Despite their inability to see it at the time, there is always another way out besides suicide for otherwise healthy young persons. Life is challenging for nearly all of us, in various ways and in varying degrees. It can seem overwhelming at times, and under certain circumstances, especially to those suffering from depression. Indeed, overwhelming circumstances can lead one to conclude that life's challenges are insurmountable. Of course, when examined rationally, they aren't. Billions of years of evolution of life on earth are ample proof of that.

I don't agree that suicide for otherwise healthy persons is sometimes the only option. It just seems that way sometimes. Depression is horrible that way; it clouds one's judgment and reasoning abilities.

What's needed is not advocacy of rights for committing suicide. What's needed is a much better understanding and awareness of depression, its causes and effects, treatments available for it, and its relation to suicide.

AS

[MoeFaux]

I fold.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I don't think it is unfair. Whether or not it is their fault, it is still an ego problem.



Hmmm. That's an interesting perspective. Personally, I believe it's not an inflation of the ego problem, as you seem to be implying. I think it's the opposite. Most severely depressed persons engage in self-doubt and self-loathing. They do not elevate their problems above the problems of others. Depressives often feel they are not worthy of the attention of others. Their problems do not warrant the intervention of others. They often feel that others will be better off without them. That's a genuine feeling and belief; it's not an attention ploy or instance of self-pity.



I certainly agree that some people may have a "chemical imbalance" which can be alleviated through a trial and error process of drugs. But they are only a beginning. Drugs don't help a person solve their problems or find ways to cope.


Again, I don't think it's fair to ridicule the chemical imbalance theory for causing a lot of the depression in certain persons. There is plenty of empirical evidence to indicate that the chemical basis is very real.

I agree that drugs alone are often not a complete solution. Nevertheless, the success rate of pharmacological treatments in allowing depressed persons to get out of their ruts is very impressive.

I think you ignore that so often the depressed person's problems are caused by the depression, not the other way around. In those cases, treating the depression is in fact treating the attendant problems.

Depression is tightly bound with stress, at both ends of cause and effect. One of its effects is to reduce the sufferer's ability to cope with stress. Thus, effectively treating the depression almost always means providing the sufferer with a greater ability to handle stress. That's another way of saying it gives one the means to cope with one's problems.


By "ego problem," I mean that a person is so self-centered they are incapable of seeing their problems in proper perspective. They are trapped in the belief their problems are special or somehow different from everyone else's or are unsolvable. Whether they came to that belief through their own conscious effort or through a chemical imbalance does not negate that truth.


Self-centered is a loaded term here. I don't think it's an appropriate term to use with clinically depressed persons. They typically aren't ego maniacs. Quite the contrary; they tend to put themselves down and genuinely mean it. They don't elevate their problems above those of others. They usually believe there is something fundamentally wrong with them. They often engage in self-loathing. Those feelings are caused by the depression itself. Blaming them or assigning moral responsibility to them for those feelings is no different from blaming a cancer patient for feeling tired or weak. How you can get from there to "self-centered" is beyond me.


We have talked about this before in the context of addicts/alcoholics and self-medication. Having worked with scores of addicts/alcoholics, I have more than my own personal experience with suicidal ideations to draw upon.


Yes, I recall. I don't mean to discount your own experiences or insight. Perhaps your experience with alcoholics gives you some undesirable bias in this context.

Aren't alcoholics in recovery usually taught that they must accept responsibility for their actions with regard to alcohol? Aren't they taught to apologize to others for the harm they have caused them in the past?

I'm not questioning the validity of that approach in treating alcohol or drug addiction. I don't think it's appropriate to apply it to depression, however. Depressives already experience a tremendous amount of guilt, most of it unwarranted and misplaced. Placing additional moral guilt upon them only compounds their problems and fails to account for some of the insidious effects of the illness.

Depressives need to be helped to build themselves up, not to tear themselves down. They are already there at the bottom.


The best description to the solution for suicidal people I ever heard was in a federal prison from an inmate who had struggled with depression his entire life and had run the gamut of antidepressants. He said, "I finally realized I needed a spiritual solution and not a chemical one."

If this were true, it would imply that highly rational, non-spiritual persons are doomed to failure in treating their depression. Of course, you know that is simply not true.

No one needs God or any supernatural force to overcome depression. Science, not spirituality, has provided the best and most effective breakthroughs in the effective treatment of depression. The most effective treatments to date for most types of depression have been chemical.

Spiritual treatments alone, in this context, can be properly regarded as woo-woo treatments. I think relying on them alone is very dangerous.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I fold.

I don't get it. Did I say something which offended you? If I did, I didn't mean to. I apologize if I have offended or hurt you.

AS

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


I don't get it. Did I say something which offended you? If I did, I didn't mean to. I apologize if I have offended or hurt you.

AS

The effort it would take to succesfully debate this out would be too emotionally involved for me, and therefore I quit.

[Graham]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I also want to say that I disagree with the idea that only mentally ill people commit suicide. There's also people who have no hope.

I should point out (just in case anyone was confused!) that I'm not a psychologist or any kind of mental health professional - my opinions are quite amateur and should be given only as much credit as they make sense to anyone!

That said, to my mind, being depressed enough to want to kill yourself makes you (or me) mentally ill. Just like lung cancer can be caused by smoking, however, and heart disease by eating fatty foods, the mental illness that is hard-core depression can be caused by, amongst other things, realy, really crappy situations like Moe's childhood. However, in the same way that you can seperate the cancer from the cigarette, you can seperate the depression from the situation.

Having no hope may cause depression, but that doesn't mean that the depression is nothing more than having no hope - I'm not sure if this is making sense but bear with me.

You take issue with my terminology, with the phrase "mental illness". This, IMO, is a common problem in society. If I describe depression as "a mental illness" people immediately think: mental - mental hospital - lunatics - strait jackets - padded cells and so on. That's not right, IMO. By my definition, anything that moves control of your mind out of your hands, so to speak; be it depression, rage, envy, whatever; constitutes a mental illness. The moment you lose control, you're mentally ill and society should behave appropriately towards you.

Like any illness, there are degrees of mental illness. You can have chest pains from indigestion, worse pains from angina or you can fall over dead from a major motcardial infarction (or whatever the medi-speak is) - the three are different but all are illnesses.

Likewise, you can feel a bit crummy, you can be so "down" that you find it hard to get out of bed and hard to eat or you can feel so down that you want to throw yourself off a bridge - the three are different but all mental illnesses, IMO.

So as far as that goes, depression to the point of suicide is a mental illness.

Graham

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


The effort it would take to succesfully debate this out would be too emotionally involved for me, and therefore I quit.

Oh. That's cool.

I wasn't trying to wear you or anyone else out. I just happen to be very interested in the subject. Forgive me for being too persistent.

AS

[Graham]

Originally posted by Girl 6
I cannot see any way to put up a barrier without affecting the spectacular views and thus imposing a "morality" on everyone else. This is the same kind of situation we are faced with on a daily basis when working with groups of people. Do you impose laws to restrict everyone's freedoms just to protect the one individual from themself? G6 Snipped at both ends!

Not to start an entirely different argument but this seems like a very American sentiment to me. If you can work the word "freedoms" into your argument it's like a free pass or something. Or maybe it's late or I've just had a little too much Bushmills . . .aaaaaanyway . . .

Perhaps if you want a view of the bay, you should buy a house by the coast? A bridge is public property and should be managed in the interests of the entire community, not just that portion of it that likes a nice view for their morning walk. If you accept that sometimes, some people need protection from themselves (whether it's kids talking to strangers, blind men crossing the road or depresssed people jumping off bridges) then you have to ask yourself - which is more important (1) that x number of people get to enjoy the view or (2) that y number of people are prevented (or delayed and indirectly prevented) from killing themselves and wasting the only life they'll ever have?

Fortunately, it's not an either/or choice. As Reprise (I think) showed with the bridge in Toronto (http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0303/ob/ob02_0303.html) views and barriers are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Graham

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Graham


You take issue with my terminology, with the phrase "mental illness". This, IMO, is a common problem in society. If I describe depression as "a mental illness" people immediately think: mental - mental hospital - lunatics - strait jackets - padded cells and so on. That's not right, IMO. By my definition, anything that moves control of your mind out of your hands, so to speak; be it depression, rage, envy, whatever; constitutes a mental illness. The moment you lose control, you're mentally ill and society should behave appropriately towards you.

Like any illness, there are degrees of mental illness. You can have chest pains from indigestion, worse pains from angina or you can fall over dead from a major motcardial infarction (or whatever the medi-speak is) - the three are different but all are illnesses.

Likewise, you can feel a bit crummy, you can be so "down" that you find it hard to get out of bed and hard to eat or you can feel so down that you want to throw yourself off a bridge - the three are different but all mental illnesses, IMO.

So as far as that goes, depression to the point of suicide is a mental illness.

Graham

Good points. I'm certainly no mental health professional either. I am not completely unversed in the subject, however.

Technically, the psychiatric and psychological professionals in the U.S. refer to depression as a "mood disorder." They refer to the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, better known as the DSM-IV, for the clinical descriptions of the illness in its various recognized forms. The DSM-IV recognizes five types of depression: 1) Major Depression; 2) Bipolar I; 3) Bipolar II; 4) Dysthymic Disorder; and 5) Cyclothymic Disorder.


At the end of the day, depression and how it affects any particular individual at any given time is highly variable.


I'm comfortable referring to depression as a mental illness. I agree with you that unfortunately that label tends to connote images of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and straight jackets and padded cells. More awareness of the illness is desperately needed. A lot of suffering from it could be prevented or alleviated.

AS

[American]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight.</font></td></tr></table>

[Luke T.]

AS, I think you may be misunderstanding my use of terms. I don't mean "ego" in the regular colloquial use. I don't think a head doctor would disagree with my use of the word to describe a depressive's problem.

And you may be misunderstanding my use of "spiritual" as well. That doesn't necessarily mean God or magic crystals, although it does for some. The God aspect does raise an interesting question, though. Is it better for a suicidal person to commit suicide rather than be a happy God-believer? ;)

One of the principle concepts behind the success of A.A. is that no drunk can stay sober alone. He must ask for help and get help from other people. We are told whenever we are about to make a decision about something to check with two other people first to see if it makes sense.

A suicidal person begins to isolate. So does a drunk who is about to relapse. This trait is so common among recovering alcoholics that it has become proverbial. "I stopped going to meetings." "I began to isolate." These are routinely given out as signs of an impending relapse.

I believe a suicidal person believes that no one can help him. "I can't solve my problem, so no one else can either." That is ego.
Ego kills.

[Luke T.]

AS, as for suicidal people having a low view of themselves, another common expression around A.A. is "a drunk is an egomaniac with low self-esteem." That is more accurate than you know.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Luke T.
AS, I think you may be misunderstanding my use of terms. I don't mean "ego" in the regular colloquial use. I don't think a head doctor would disagree with my use of the word to describe a depressive's problem.

And you may be misunderstanding my use of "spiritual" as well. That doesn't necessarily mean God or magic crystals, although it does for some. The God aspect does raise an interesting question, though. Is it better for a suicidal person to commit suicide rather than be a happy God-believer? ;)

One of the principle concepts behind the success of A.A. is that no drunk can stay sober alone. He must ask for help and get help from other people. We are told whenever we are about to make a decision about something to check with two other people first to see if it makes sense.

A suicidal person begins to isolate. So does a drunk who is about to relapse. This trait is so common among recovering alcoholics that it has become proverbial. "I stopped going to meetings." "I began to isolate." These are routinely given out as signs of an impending relapse.

I believe a suicidal person believes that no one can help him. "I can't solve my problem, so no one else can either." That is ego.
Ego kills.

OK. Thanks for the insight and explanation.

[Tmy]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight.</font></td></tr></table>

[Graham]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight.</font></td></tr></table>

[Mr Manifesto]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight.</font></td></tr></table>

[roger]

I've been there, walked the bridge with no barrier. And I still don't want barriers. Not because I want the opportunity, but because I don't agree that society needs to, or even has the right to, try to prevent everything bad that can happen in one's life.

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight.</font></td></tr></table>

[AmateurScientist]

Hey hey, now. This isn't a flaming thread. Take it somewhere else, guys.

AS

[tim]

I need to register an interest on this.
For seven years and more I was a member of an organisation here called the Samaritans. Our purpose is to listen to people who are suicidal and desperate, 24/7.
Try it. Suicidal people are just like you and just like me, only they have reached the end of their tether and death is preferable to living. Sometimes all that's left is a hand holding out to pull them back from the brink. So don't complain at the signs on the bridge. Don't complain at barriers. Sometimes all it takes to call someone back is a little gentle persuasion.
Please accept this from someone who has tried to do that and failed. And talked to someone on the telephone as they slipped into unconsiousness and not been able to do anything about it. And seen the press reports of a suicide a few weeks later.Try doing that.
Then argue about how unsightly barriers are.

[AmateurScientist]

Thanks, Tim. We should all take heed from your words.

AS

[Graham]

Originally posted by roger

I've been there, walked the bridge with no barrier. And I still don't want barriers. Not because I want the opportunity, but because I don't agree that society needs to, or even has the right to, try to prevent everything bad that can happen in one's life.



There is no way, IMO, to prevent everything bad that can happen in one's life. My argument from the beginning of this thread, however, has been that if it is possible for things to to be both practical and beautiful. Practical in this sense meaning "have a function that prevent or at least delays suicide" and beautiful meaning "not blocking hte view of too many people to the extent that the loss of said view causes any actual loss in their lives" .

Graham

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight.</font></td></tr></table>

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by tim
I need to register an interest on this.
For seven years and more I was a member of an organisation here called the Samaritans. Our purpose is to listen to people who are suicidal and desperate, 24/7.
Try it. Suicidal people are just like you and just like me, only they have reached the end of their tether and death is preferable to living. Sometimes all that's left is a hand holding out to pull them back from the brink. So don't complain at the signs on the bridge. Don't complain at barriers. Sometimes all it takes to call someone back is a little gentle persuasion.
Please accept this from someone who has tried to do that and failed. And talked to someone on the telephone as they slipped into unconsiousness and not been able to do anything about it. And seen the press reports of a suicide a few weeks later.Try doing that.
Then argue about how unsightly barriers are.

Argumentum ad misericordiam.

Suicide is still the person's choice. If they call a suicide hotline to be talked out of it, good, talk them out of it: that's clearly what they want. If they die anyway, there's no point in scourging yourself about it. They made their bed, they have to lie in it.

[tim]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Argumentum ad misericordiam.

Suicide is still the person's choice. If they call a suicide hotline to be talked out of it, good, talk them out of it: that's clearly what they want. If they die anyway, there's no point in scourging yourself about it. They made their bed, they have to lie in it.

It doesn't work like that, Mr M.
Samaritans listen. we're not there to "talk them out of it". We're there to listen, because sometimes people need to talk to help them make up their own mind what to do. Sometimes they decide death is what they want. We don't hang up when that happens. We stay with them. As I said - try it. See if you don't think every suicide is a tragedy - especially when you talk to someone as they die.

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Suicide is still the person's choice. If they call a suicide hotline to be talked out of it, good, talk them out of it: that's clearly what they want. If they die anyway, there's no point in scourging yourself about it. They made their bed, they have to lie in it.

I agree that it's never the fault of the suicide prevention worker or volunteer. It is quite common and natural to feel some guilt that perhaps something else could have been done or said that may have prevented the final outcome. It's not entirely rational to feel that way, but it's perfectly human.

The "they made their bed" comment seems awfully cold to me. I hope you never experience severe depression and never have suicidal ideations. I wouldn't want you to have to eat your words.

AS

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Argumentum ad misericordiam.

Suicide is still the person's choice. If they call a suicide hotline to be talked out of it, good, talk them out of it: that's clearly what they want. If they die anyway, there's no point in scourging yourself about it. They made their bed, they have to lie in it.

You fail to appreciate the true complexity to the humnan mind, IMO.

Further, your lack of compassion is . . . well, typical, I am sorry to say.

I have known people who were truely suicidal; that is to say they would, IMO, most certainly have killed themselves, had the next card out of the pack been other than it was. They were not "talked out of it" insomuch as they were delayed for the one minute or ten it took them to come out of that state and into another where, as for every "normal" human being suicide was a ridiculous overstatment. and certainly not "the answer"

A bed was made for them and they had a hand in it, right enough, but we all do foolish things in our lives but we shouldn't have to die for it, IMO, if it's at all avoidable.

Graham

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Suezoled


It's a personal decision. However, bear in mind that (usually) when a person decides or tries to kill himself, it's because his capacity to cope with stresses (internal and external) has been flooded and outweighed by his emotional burden: pain, guilt, hopelessness, etc predominates.

Suicide is a sad decision and made even worse by people who are apathetic or angry. Since suicide is, in most societies, a social taboo, people recoil and even lash out at the suicidal person, unburdening their own fears and guilt onto the other person.

At least that's what I read.

http://www.metanoia.org/suicide/

I'm sorry I overlooked this earlier. Great response. Thanks.

Also, that's a terrific website you linked to. I like the approach of the author. It's very knowledgeable and non-judgmental, which is exactly what the suicidal person needs.

Thanks again.

AS

[American]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight.</font></td></tr></table>

[shuize]

All credit to suicide counselors and the police who try and talk the jumpers down.

But my feelings on this are similar to the way I feel when people make the argument: "Nevermind the cost, if it saves even one life it's worth it."

That argument comes up in all sorts of spending rationalizations and I disagree.

I think it's fair to ask "Just how much money is it going to cost?" "How inconvenient is the proposed solution going to be?" "How much uglier are we going to make the world to 'suicide pr