Talk:Suicide methods/Archive 2

Stating the obvious...
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but this page appears to be highly controversial. I can understand perfectly well the reasons for and against putting this page up; for example, in a school project about euthanasia, this article could be extremely helpful. However, there is also the fact that it's stating methods of committing suicide, and even going as far as telling you how easy or painless the methods are. However, what horrifies me is the fact that people are, in effect, saying "ah well, if someone commits suicide because of what is on this page, they can't sue because we have disclaimers. So yeah sure, let's keep it up!". Also, people appear to be wanting this page to stay up more for the fact that THEY CAN put the page up, rather than the fact it is particularly useful for many people. You can't really say "people who want to commit suicide aren't going to come to wikipedia" either; indeed this is the whole reason I found this page in the first place. What annoys me even more is the fact that, to the mere suggestion of having some sort of warning at the top of the page, people aggressively reply about how it would mean putting a warning on the top of every single page with violence on it when there is no point to do so. Why, may I ask? People put spoiler warnings up when the plot details are given away for books, films and video games without this much fuss. I completely agree that wikipedia should be a resource comepletely free of censorship, however at the same time I think it is perfectly acceptable to warn the average reader of a pages content BEFORE they start to read it. I should also note that teenagers can be very volatile in what they think due to the changes you all know are going in them. They might feel in a way that actually they would regret later on in life. They might act out on something that they wouldn't usually do. Sod what legislation says; would you, because of a method you placed on this very page, want to be responsible for the death of someone who isn't quite old enough to understand themselves? But yeah great page. Do whatever. --Ronius 13:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia.  It is grossly irresponsible.  If Wikipedia cannot display images of an erect penis, how can it justify contributing to the loss of even one human life?  Chelseaboy 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

this page really should be taken down, it's telling people HOW to kill themselves!

Stop being paranoid. Wikipedia won't be held responsible if someone kills themselves, and then decides to sue. That is, if they suceed. Anyway, I would like some more various, interesting/creative ways to kill yourself. I'm not suicidal, I just think that there is more than one way to skin a cat, if you catch my drift. These older ones are quite boring. ~Mene Tekel

Thanks
This was pretty helpful. Thanks.

Take down or change considerably
I concur that the page should be taken down, at least in its current form. The wording really gives the impression that the page gives advice on how to kill oneself.

Example from "Jumping under a train, tram or car":

"If the person is struck by a vehicle, the damage will be much less than if they go under the vehicle's wheels, where the chance of sustaining lethal injuries is high; however it is possible that just an arm or a leg would get under the wheels, in which case the person may survive handicapped."

And from "Plastic bag method":

"The use of a plastic bag to suffocate oneself has become a popular method since it is a comfortable, painless way to take one's own life with the least physical or mechanical harm to the person's body"

There are way too many details, plus it mentions several easy methods which people generally are not aware of (plastic bag, injecting air). The encyclopedic value of such an article is very questionable (and nil in my mind).

Kaarjuus 20:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nobody thinks "I want to kill myself. How do I do that again? I'll go look on Wikipedia." This information is documented in many other places, and strikes me as plenty encyclopedic. N (t/c) 02:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC) NOTE: I actually was brainstorming my own list, realized later Wikipedia was a much better idea, looked, found it very useful.
 * I'm here precisely because I did just that. As for everyone who wants this taken down; Shut the fuck up. Naive jackasses like you are usually the reason people want to die. Let them leave in peace instead of holding them captive in suffering just because you yourselves want to live as long as possible even if it means leeching off their misery (you want to "help" someone to live just because it'd make YOU feel better by thinking you have done some GOOD? Fuck you.) More details please. Yes, a simple Google search brings up links to lots more information, with entire sites dedicated to single specific methods, but Wikipedia is where it belongs, all cleaned up neat and trimmed down to the facts. Thanks!

Please refer me to a place which says the equivalent of

"The use of a plastic bag to suffocate oneself has become a popular method since it is a comfortable, painless way to take one's own life with the least physical or mechanical harm to the person's body"

Please do.

The point is not that people intenting to kill themselves come to wiki to search for the best way to do it (although, I'd really like to know your rationale for that assumption). The point is, people reading this page will a) think about suicide and b) know of a "comfortable, popular, painless way" of doing that.

Kaarjuus 10:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"strikes me as plenty encyclopedic"

Encyclopedic in the sense that it's a written collection of knowledge, sure. But how about creating a page on how to kill a person, then, like

"inserting a thin sharp blade with a length of at least 10 cm into a person's head under the eyelid is one of the quickest ways of killing that person, and it's becoming a popular method since it produces very little blood and leaves the body with no easy-to-see wounds"

That is also very encyclopedic, it's knowledge. But it's knowledge unfit to belong in any encyclopedia written by and for ethical persons.

So is this page.


 * I am currently having suicidal thoughts. I am not going to act on them. I think the tone of this page is not good. for instance;

>>Suicide by drowning could also be done by jumping from a bridge

This is written in the future tense, which is not a way to present factual imnformation, and the wording also implies advice. a much better way to say the same thing would be

>>Suicides sometimes jump from a bridge to try to end their lives, in some of these cases, the actual >>death occurs through drowning.

80.5.52.78 17:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)v

If someone wants to commit suicide, it doesn't matter if Wikipedia has lots of methods, they're going to do it. This seems pretty encyclopedic to me. Travis 04:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No it should not. It is very helpfull to people that are suffering. == This should really be taken down. ==

This is disgusting! It's giving various techniques on how to kill oneself! There has to be some law about this, it's like looking at a how-to commit suicide book!


 * Not illegal, at least under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
 * If we remove or edit all Wikipedia articles detailing how to do something destructive (that's including pages which describe how somebody else did something destructive), Wikipedia would be missing a lot of information. This page doesn't actively encourage suicide, it merely describes a few methods of suicide which have become prevalent.  I don't think it should be taken down, and I don't have a problem with the tone of the article. Jeff Silvers

This should be taken downJoler 03:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. This is disgusting. Wikipedia should not have an article detailing ways to commit suicide. Juse because other sites have it, doesn't mean this one should. Kazuhite 16:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
It might be worth putting the People seeking help on averting suicidal thoughts should refer to the above website. at the top of the page... Trollderella 00:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that covered by the "no disclaimers" guideline? - brenneman (t) (c)  01:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I was thinking of it more as a disambig. If you came here looking for ways to kill yourself, you might be looking for resources for people who want to kill themselves... Trollderella 18:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, evil. The "this isn't really a disclaimer disclaimer."  Go forth and do it, TD.  And ten points to Hufflepuff, as well. -  brenneman (t) (c)  05:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Done - let me know what you think. Trollderella 15:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What, are we going to add a link to every fucking crisis hotline? I don't think so. --SPUI (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you need to be so rude? &mdash; Matt Crypto 22:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No, but this is probably the largest and most comprehensive listing of crisis hotlines in the world. Please be a little less rude and inconsiderate - perhaps you want to suggest an alternative instead of reverting? Trollderella 18:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, make an article at List of crisis hotlines by country. --SPUI (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant a suggestion relevant to this article. Trollderella 19:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not wanting to rise to your revert warring bait, I will let someone else deal with this. Trollderella 19:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand why people might want to add this sort of thing, but I personally would favour not having the "People seeking help..." bit. I think Wikipedia should be a simple and direct presentation of knowledge, and that, as a general principle, we shouldn't start second-guessing why a reader might be reading the article. It's also going to be difficult to choose a suitable website to refer people to. &mdash; Matt Crypto 22:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. People looking to kill themselves are not adressable like others. If one person reads this article and kills themselves afterwards, do you want that death on our hands? If one person reads that disclaimer and saves themselves, isn't that worth a line of italic text at the top? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with Hipocrite. N (t/c) 15:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The notice is not going to have any effect and anybody, suicidal or not, and it breaks NPOV. --Sn0wflake 23:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyone with experience care to weigh in on the above? I dimly remember (this is not supposed to be authoritative at all) hearing that it's very important that a suicidal version be dissuaded in any way possible... and if this disclaimer prevents the death of just one person out of the hundreds of suicide-contemplators who might see it, it's worth it. I don't think mentioning "Suicidal people are generally advised to seek help" is POV - it's certainly true. N (t/c) 00:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That was me, it was true, and you've obviously lost this argument. Why can't I fucking walk away? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 01:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So we put that in suicide under a "societal view of suicide". Anything else is fucking stupid. --SPUI (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You miss the point. Suicidal people aren't going to see that. If it is a breach of NPOV to have this in the template or at the top, it's tiny. N (t/c) 00:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I am willing to let go on this one, but not on the template. A small message here might not harm NPOV by much, as long as it does not call suicidal people medical cases and such. If the message is general and strictly factual (non-biased), that is. --Sn0wflake 00:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

For those not following, this article has been listed on AfD by Hipocrite some minutes ago. --Sn0wflake 01:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * it was speedily kept. I think the disclaimer on the top of the page is annoying and non-encylopedic.  If anywhere, a link to a suicide hotline should be placed in the "external links" section.  It doesn't matter if people might use this page for information on how to commit suicide themselves.  The fake disambiguation/disclaimer heading is kind of ridiculous.  --Kewp (t) 05:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it a little more, if people feel strongly about the disclaimer, it doesn't really matter, but I think the external link to befrienders.org should be moved to an external links section, because linking to that website might imply Wikipedia's endorsement of the website/organization in question. The link to Crisis hotline seems okay, though.--Kewp (t) 05:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to move that link to the list of crisis hotlines by country, but that article is up for deletion. As such, I will change the link once that article is kept. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Article is no longer up for deletion. It was speedily kept, see Articles for deletion/Suicide methods.  So I'm going to move the Befriender's link to list of crisis hotlines.--Kewp (t) 15:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry my mistake, I thought you were talking about this article... You can still make changes to an article that is up for deletion, but befrienders.org is already there. --Kewp (t) 15:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that the deletion or merge of the other article will redlink this article. In the event that the list is deleted, I will start a wikipedia article on the Befrienders and link the italics at the top there. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going back to my earliest position here, I don't think this page needs a disclaimer at all, especially after you put this article up for deletion Articles for deletion/Suicide methods and considering the similar discussion over at Template_talk:Suicide. Also, why should befrienders.org be mentioned at the top of the page(Especially since it's run by the Samaritans)? Why this particular organization? If we put it there it seems like an endorsement of the website in question, even if it does eventually have its own article.--Kewp (t) 17:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That is not a disclaimer, to start - it is a disambig, per Trollderella. List of crisis hotlines is fine by me, and much better than an individual organization. However, if that article is deleted, what are we to do? I would also argue that including suicide methods here is as much an endorsement of them as it is an endorsement of a link we put here. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever you choose to call it, it's a disclaimer. same thing at Template talk:Suicide. Listing suicide methods is an endorsement of suicide? Would you please elaborate further?  The article is not about crisis hotlines, it's about suicide methods, so the inclusion of any link pertaining to crisis hotlines seems irrelevent to me. --Kewp (t) 19:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Listing suicide methods could be seen as an endorsement of suicide, and I, personally, do see it as such. I don't see how I need to elaborate any further than to say that you believe that linking to a list of crisis hotlines is an endorsement of those hotlines. What is the balance of equities that favors the removal of the link to a bunch of crisis hotlines at the top of the article? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's because the article is not about crisis hotlines. It's about suicide methods (a separate topic). You do need to elaborate when you say that the existence of this article is an endorsement of the topic matter--that's certainly not clear to me.  Incidentally, this is the main issue raised at No disclaimer templates, about why disclaimers should not be used.  See No_disclaimer_templates in particular.--Kewp (t) 19:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What is the balance of equities that favors the removal of a link to a list of a list of a bunch of crisis hotlines at the top of the article? (repition intentional). If you are arguing nodisclaimertemplates, could you describe what information at one of the five disclaimer pages is duplicated by inserting a link to a list of a list of a bunch of crisis hotlines at the top of the article? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not a disclaimer. A disclaimer disclaims legal liability. This is an attempt to prevent people from committing suicide, which may or may not be justified, but is certainly not a disclaimer. N (t/c) 20:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why then, if a disclaimer only disclaims legal liability, does the guideline list "the exception" to the rule: i.e. "Template:spoiler is the exception." I think the guideline as it stands, is ambiguous, but it does provide a general philosophy for these kinds of things, both risk disclaimers and others.--Kewp (t) 07:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Cites required.
Please do not reinsert content regarding motivations or lethality of various methods without cites. Do not add a method to this list without a cite. As it stands, the article requires cites to back up the majority of it's facts. In the event that one believes the book listed in references is the cite for the fact given, please provide page numbers. I am still trimming down the assertions of fact, and motive that are not verified or defacto unverifiable (such as motivation for successful, rather than failed, suicide) Thank you. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please remove this page - it cannot be neutral
Hello, I am a Wikipedia user, not a contributor, so I hope I add this comment correctly.

You cannot provide practical information about suicide methods on a Web page with a neutral POV. That promotes death. Some of you obviously realize that. I have spent some time writing to the page author and anyone who thinks it is a good idea to keep this page online.

The Internet has a collective POV on suicide that is identical to mine. Try Google. The #1 site with the most links by everyone including those who have gone through suicidal thinking and attempts and made links is http://www.metanoia.org/suicide/ which has had more than 4 million page views. It is a self-help suicide prevention resource that is very effective for people in crisis while allowing free choice. I have referred to it countless times myself.

Because I have been suicidal myself and for other reasons I spent years discussing suicide with suicidal people anonymously online and then I went to grad school and became a social worker and worked with suicidal people in real life.

I learned far more about suicide than is possible or desirable to say here, but here are some key points:

(1) Most suicidal people want to die. They are often conflicted but a genuine death wish is usually involved. Not always.

(2) Suicidal people can be very impulsive and they can often be influenced toward death or away from death.

(3) Suicidal people often get on the Internet to find someone to talk to, advice or information. Many avoid the mental health system including hotlines for a variety of reasons. One major reason is mental health professionals try to prevent the free choice of suicide (you get put in a hospital involuntarily).

(5) Most suicide attempts fail. A primary reason is because it is common to use means that are not lethal, believing it will work. Suicide attempt survivors are often disappointed to be alive at first (for example, I was). They generally feel better later and want to be alive (I did).

(6) If there has been any easy access on the Net before now to practical information about suicide methods, I have never become aware of it in all my years online. What I saw on the Usenet group about suicide methods was wild speculation, funny Darwin Award stories, and outrageous fantasies -- maybe something dangerous got posted there later after I left. I have never been in a depression or suicide-oriented group, forum, or chat that allowed any how-to information about suicide. The famous online suicide pacts are made privately and suicide intervention is what you get if you talk or post in public. I have never hit on a Web site with practical information about how to do it. The Web has so many sites this information may be somewhere (I would like the URLs) but it has been obscure. I would speculate that such sites would be unlikely to get a lot of links from living people. It is common to meet people who think suicide is a choice and those who won't do anything to stop one but until now it has been virtually unknown to find someone willing to provide information about how to do it effectively because all are perfectly aware of the consequences and they do not wish to be responsible for a death. The only well-known resource for lay people is the book Final Exit which takes time and effort to get and the book is completely against suicide for depression. In general it is safe to say that suicidal people have been getting suicide prevention information and support. I know for an absolute fact that this has saved many lives without forcing anyone to stay alive. In this way the Net has been pro-life while allowing free choice. Why is it that way? Why 4 million hits and the most links on free choice suicide prevention? Because all of us so far have voluntarily made it that way. That is what has emerged from the collective intelligence of the world.


 * One might speculate that the reason that information on suicide methods is generally unavailable has something to do with the fact that the people who succeed in committing suicide aren't around afterwards to talk about it. The "collective intelligence" of the world is certainly not an entity without a vested interest in keeping people alive. I respect your expertise and your judgement, but if the information presented on this page is accurate (which I don't know), I feel that it ought to be there. "Voluntarily making it that way" does not appear to be a useful argument, given that you are arguing precisely for the suppression of this information. Perorative 11:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

(6) With the right kind of help, suicidal thinking usually goes away in most people, including survivors of attempts. Most suicides are associated with depression which goes away in most people who get help. If it is associated with a bad situation in your life that you resolve it may never come back. If you have a chronic condition it might come back and you might get suicidal again but it can go away again. Depression normally occurs in episodes. It is temporary. You get over it and feel better again, unless you are dead.

I found this page about suicide methods on Wikipedia today. It is linked to the main suicide page which comes up on Google in the second page of a search. Wikipedia becomes a more popular and influential source of information every day. I think it's pretty safe to say that now for the first time in our culture it is fast and easy to get practical information on how to kill yourself. Providing this information to suicidal depressed people has been considered irresponsible so widely that it is almost a total consensus. I would expect the information to change the behavior of some people. I would expect it to cause more death than would otherwise occur. I would be not be surprised to see you get sued if this page stays up (I am not a lawyer, I have no idea how it would turn out). I don't want you to get sued, I don't want you to help people kill themselves, I want you to take this page down permanently.

You are making me think of a man I met in the ER one day who used a well-known and popular method that he thought would work, but health care workers know it doesn't work. Of course, Wikipedia says it doesn't work and tells you how to get it right so you end up dead. Anyway, this man sat in his house waiting to die as he expected, but hours went by and the sun came up, and he realized there was beauty in it and he thought about his kids, and he drove himself to my hospital to check in. Now I suppose if he had used Wikipedia he would more likely be dead and I would never have met him and his kids would have no father, and statistically, they would be more likely to kill themselves too.


 * What method was it? The only description of "do it this way, not that way" I see on this page is that you should slash your wrists along instead of across the vein, which is extremely well-known. N (t/c) 23:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Think about it. 68.154.121.173 10:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Tell us, we Wikipedians wanna know. Is it slashing wrists? --Arm 10:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

These concerns are nonsense.


 * Neutral point of view refers to not taking sides in any dispute about a matter of fact or interpretation. It does not refer to ensuring Wikipedia has no effect on people's behavior.
 * Suicide is a personal choice--a particularly ill-thought-out one, but a choice nonetheless. Wikipedia is not directly responsible for how people use the information we publish.
 * Wikipedia's mission is to provide a comprehensive accounting of human knowledge to every person in the world. Any other concerns--including the prevention of suicide--are at best secondary to our mission.
 * There are very good reasons that suicide (at least in ordinary circumstances) is a bad thing. If you want to prevent suicide, you do it by increasing the amount of information available, not decreasing it, because if reality compels us to believe that suicide is wrong, then the way to prevent suicide is to give suicidal people a better grasp on reality. This is accomplished through knowledge.
 * In specific, I think these suicide articles could be improved by adding some information about psychology.
 * Specifically providing information about suicide methods won't necessarily increase the number of suicides. It might actually decrease it. I recall hearing that most people who successfully commit suicide thought it through poorly--i.e., the longer someone spends contemplating suicide, the more likely it is they will decide against it. Providing lots and lots of cold, hard reality may help to impress upon someone the true weight of what they're about to do.
 * Contemplating suicide, with no intention on actually carrying it out, is theraputic to some.

— Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

updating previous comment
Well, to update myself because I had not looked in a while, I did go looking and found there are now some sites even much worse than yours. They are all very bad if the word bad has any meaning at all. 68.154.121.173 12:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

you people are so sensitive - YOU DON'T NEED TO PROMOTE DEATH - IT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO ALL OF YOU ANYWAY, PEOPLE JUST NEED TO STOP BEING SO JUDGEMENTAL - if you never been there then you shouldn't talk shit about how it's not right to have this page or this information here or there - just because the info is here isn't encouraging suicide, if someone really wants to, this page sin't gonig to be the deicidnig factor believe me.

Reverted again.
I have reverted additional additions which are either pure weseal or just plain uncited. Before adding anything to this page, please include a precise cite as to where such information can be found. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible removal of the disclaimer?
Recent developments over at Template talk:Suicide render the use of a disclaimer in this or any other article related to suicide redundant. I am considering removing the disclaimer when the new template is implemented. Strong objetions? --Sn0wflake 03:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Suicides by cop "lack willpower"?
I don't think it's neutral to say that suicide by cop is usually chosen by people "who have no willpower to kill themselves by any other method." Willpower is a subjective judgement that assumes certain choices arise from an unseeable inner weakness, while other chioces do not.

Just wondering...........
What is wrong with a how to guide, if it makes things less harsh on the people who have to clear up the mess afterwards? There are many failed suicide attempts that end up in worse results than if that person were successful - for instance physical disability, brain damage etc.

Everyone who is "right thinking" seems to think that suicide is terrible and a waste of life. What if that life has become a source of severe angst to it's owner? Why is it wrong to wish to take your own life? I agree that there are certain forms of depression that rely on chemical imbalances in the neurological system, and can be effectively treated by drugs, but there are conditions that aren't anywhere nearly as easy to address.

As an axample to the above, i cite what is termed as Gender Dysphoria, Gender Identity Conflict, or Transsexuality (of which i have the dubious privilege of having). The only known way of adressing this is Hormone therapy and Gender Reassingment Surgery (or a sex change operation, or SRS). This involves many frightening steps to change your outward gender - the anxieties are almost overwhelming - particularly the reactions of the rest of society. I am aware of Transsexuals being denied life saving treatment by ambulance crew, various levels of violence, and entire families rejecting their family member. This is not a condition people choose to have (and dspite common thoughts, it also affects people born genetically female, not just genetically male), we are born this way - it is a mismatch between the brain and body, thought to be caused by hormonal abnormalities BEFORE birth.

You constantly feel you are living a lie, as you aren't relating to people as you feel you should be, you are treated incorrectly by the law, and i don't even want to remember what it's like at school when you are in the wrong shower, naked, in front of 30 people of the opposite gender. The vulnerability this condition causes is something i would not wish on my worst enemy, the constant fear you live in in case you are found out, and lose everything you perceive as dear (friends, social status, objects, everything). Most people have felt fear in their lives - i have experienced nothing else for at least 25 years. Who has the right to tell me that i have no choice in whether i live or die? Why does society persist in the myth that death is less preferable to a living hell (even when asleep due to constant nightmares). If someone feels they are not strong enough to go on, especially if they have given it their all to try and cope or change things, why should they be prevented from getting the knowledge to do what they feel necessary - in a way that will cause the least impact on the ones left behind (many of whom they care for deeply)?

I dare say there will be replies to this comment (or essay, as it's turning out), saying that i, and others like me, just need help - that we can learn how to have a happy and fulfilling life. To those people, i suggest spending a week or two 24/7 living as the opposite gender to who they feel they are - you have a choice, i don't. I also suspect there will be replies from transphobics (like homophobics, but related to transgender condtions (of which this is one of many)) - to you i say try reading a few books on Transsexuality - a good one is True Selves by Mildred L. Brown and Chloe Ann Rownsley, it will give you and idea of the constant nightmare people like myself live with.

In conclusion, i ask that people respect the strong suicidal thoughts that some people have (not just Transsexuals), and not just to dismiss it as something that we don't like to think about - if you are one of the majority of people who actually is content with their life and actually knows how to have fun and enjoy theirselves, i hope you never know how bleak life can be. If an article is well written and minimises risks associated with it's content, bearing in mind that there will always be someone who feels suicidal, then is it all that bad?


 * YOU REQUIRE IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE. PRINT OUT A COPY OF WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN AND GO TO THE NEAREST EMERGENCY ROOM NOW. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * THAT'S NOT GOING TO HELP. Shouting at people in all caps that they are diseased is probably the worst way one could select to approach this issue. Good job. --Sn0wflake 21:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I challenge your qualifications to make that judgement, and represent that, in fact, shouting at people that they need immediate medical assistance is the best way one could select to approach this issue. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Openly declaring my qualifications or experience on the subject of suicide does not benefit the project in any manner, and as such I will politely refrain from commenting. However, if you actually want to know about how to handle a case such as this one in a correct manner, realise that what people need is to be treated with respect and to be understood, not to be shouted at by an anti-suicidal activist. This will, at most, make the person laugh. All a suicidal needs is to have somebody who can "get" what goes on inside of his or her mind, not to go to an emergency room. It's not an illness, it's an human condition. --Sn0wflake 00:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * People who don't know enough about something to have an informed opinion, commenting on a topic doesn't benefit the project either. -- A Concerned Citizen 11/11/05


 * Interesting text. You should consider writing a book. Nevertheless, it's not worth discussing this issue much because it involves religion, and as such, you will never get people to agree, even if they do realise you have a point. It's just the way the human race works, or rather, was made to work. At the moment the article is heading towards balance, so things should be fine. Best of luck, --Sn0wflake 17:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You need help, buddy. I'm sorry to hear about your predicament, but you need to try and make the best of it. Find a good therapist; it'll help you feel better. Trust me. -- A Concerned Citizen 11/11/05


 * "What is wrong with a how to guide...?" How-to guides belong on Wikibooks! --TantalumTelluride 06:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

-suffacation is not a relatively painless way to go - when was the last time you tried to strangle yourself. hell painkillers is not a painless way to go which kind of defeats basic logic.

-suffacation is not a relatively painless way to go - when was the last time you tried to strangle yourself. hell painkillers is not a painless way to go which kind of defeats basic logic.


 * The person who wrote the above may need help, but there are limits to what help can be had, and many people don't understand just how deep pain can go. I think it's good to have methods that can help ppl avoid making messes with their suicide and do it certainly and cleanly. People who haven't dealt with deep problems just don't know. The government should provide ppl with a safe way to commit suicide, safe meaning that it doesn't leave the person crippled or brain damaged messed up in any way and doesnt leave a massive bloody mess to clean up. To force ppl to stay alive when they are in a situation of "total pain" (for lack of a better term) is absolutely selfish. Any access to right and true information on suicide is a service no community should be without.

I will reply to the ":YOU REQUIRE IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE. PRINT OUT A COPY OF WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN AND GO TO THE NEAREST EMERGENCY ROOM NOW. Hipocrite - [[User " comment. I have been in counselling/therapy for over 6 years, and it just about helps me get through - the immediate medical assitance would (and in the past has involved anti-depressants (which in my case don't work as this isn't a chemical imbalance), and commital to a psychiatric institution - the place is "safe" and stops you doing anything "stupid", but it also doesn't help - believe it or not, most of my thought processes are considered rational by the experts (except the suicidal stuff), so i just feel that i am going mad with official approval - this makes the situation worse. All i was asking in my original comment/essay was that people aren't judgmental and try to understand what how bad it is possible to feel under extreme circumstances. I can't make anyone condone my feelings or actions (especially when religious or moral beliefs get involved), and that is a great pity, but it all adds to my general cynicism of the human condition. Like i said earlier, i hope no one else goes through the feelings i do pretty much every day, but try putting yourself in my position and see how sacred you think your own existence would be - and then to be told in that position it is wrong to make a decision that would improve things after all else seems to be failing. All i ask is that peoples views and feelings are respected and not judged by your own standards - they are probably invalid without training or having been in the situation yourself. By the way, i already have shown what i typed to my psychiatrist, as it was a useful insight into my thought processes - there were no drugs prescribed or accusations of madness, just a LONG exploration of the thoughts and feelings involved to try and help me understand my options better - the help process is long and slow, and the bottom line is can i continue to put up with my life until (hopefully) the therapy process makes a difference - there are no quick fixes or magic wands. My initial writing was not a cry for help or advice as i am already doing that, and Snoflake was right - the shouting just got laughed at - I was putting the other side of a very biased argument, as most people with depression or who are truly suicidal or both tend not to bother as they have given up on society understanding them - one of the main feelings involved is isolation and/or lonliness. At least it provoked a discussion and seems to have made some people think and hopefully be able to be more understanding and/or tolerant of a very complex and misunderstood issue.


 * Wow. You come across as such an articulate, considered person. You clearly need no advice from strangers, but I just want you to know that there are people in the world who can comprehend and accept the truth of conditions like yours. I invite you to keep using your evident gift for expressing yourself. We appreciate it. -- A Sympathetic Citizen 01/01/06

There are a lot of people that would agree that for some people with physical conditions that are beyond treatment, in exreme pain or just dying slowly have the right to choose whether they still want to live or not. There's a lot of discussion about it, different legislation in different places and so on. But once this is not about psychological instead of physical conditions and suffering, popular opinion shifts to the other end of the spectrum. Usually people fail to see that sometimes for psychological conditions, treatment can be as unsuccessful as treatment for certain physical illnesses. If someone has been through years and years of unsuccessful treatment ans is suffering like someone having a physical illness would have been then it really shouldn't make a difference. -- Nsut 134.147.117.140 19:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Does this make anyone happy?
I too feel that this page contains way too much information... but still, I don't think removing it is the best thing to do. I added the following (which I took from the Suicide page:


 * This page concerns suicide. For resources for those seeking help averting suicidal thoughts, see List of crisis hotlines by country.

That make anyone happy? JG of Borg 23:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We already have a template which covers that completely. --Sn0wflake 18:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok - feel free to add it in then - I didn't see it so I just took the words I saw on the suicide page and copied them here. JG of Borg 19:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's what you mean, that template... um, ok. Doesn't seem very prominent, but I defer to the consensus.  Are you going to remove the warning from the main page too then? JG of Borg 19:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What is innaccurate/unneutral about this topic? I oppose it, (as I am suicidal myself)

I am a new user. Thanks

70.176.219.169 08:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Shultz's recent edit
I removed their edit as I don't think this particular example is common and I would like to see some sources of examples this type of suicide before it is put back in the article. At the top of the article is the sentence
 * This is a list of a number of common suicide methods that are used by people who wish to commit suicide.

--Clawed 10:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Tourist Execution
I don't agree that the country execute the criminals "frequently".


 * However it has notably done so, and is a good concrete example for this abstract method. JG of Borg 18:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Information = Bad ?
Information is NOT bad ! If you want to kill yourself, as lots of people do from vey early ages, the best that can happen is having good information on how to do it. Shooting yourself with a low caliber weapon (22) is a passport to mental disablement, so why not offer info on the right way to do it?! keep it !

Opinions, opinions
Just because some feels that this topic is "wrong", or "disgusting", or whatever, is no reason to remove this article.

Why censor it? Not a single person here has given any reason to remove this article that does not stem from utterly subjective personal biases (this includes ethics). All articles should be kept by default, no matter how distasteful, unless someone can prove that it contains no informational value.

Any one of thousands of other articles give plenty of information on how to kill ones self or others. Even the most simple minded person who understands the basic fuctions of the brain, or heart, can easily infer that destroying/severely damaging them will result in death. Are you people going to erase all medical and anatomical knowledge on wikipedia as well? It's far more detailed, accurate, as well as more useful, in the pursuit of suicide, than anything that has been on this page. Anything that can heal, can harm.

All knowledge is power, and all power can be wielded as a weapon. You cannot disarm the few who would use knowledge with ill intent(another dubious and subjective phrase), without doing a far greater diservice to those who simply wish to learn.

The article needs to be cleaned up and expanded/completed, not removed. Opinions need to be removed, or stated as such, and facts need to be double checked. That is my opinion.

-Nick 69.205.xxx.xxx 19:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Factual Dispute
Under the section on wrist slashing, it says that the goal is to bleed to death by slashing the veins, when in fact it would be far more effective to slash the arteries. Blood trickles out of veins, but gushes out of arteries. This also goes contrary to the oft-cited advice of "going down, not across"; while this does indeed open up a greater surface area, it is not practical for slicing arteries, as they are not visible through the skin, and are in fact hard to find. Someone with more knowledge than me should incoporate this information in.

68.110.114.40 23:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Alex

Side not: "Water is often involved, as water is a good conductor of electricity"; water is not a good conductor.

Burning - accuracy
When immolation was used as a punishment for crime (burning at the stake for heretics, witches, et al.), the death of the individual so burned either came quickly via smoke inhalation, or, depending on the climate/weather, death often did not occur for several days after the initial fire and was due to systemic failure from burns and/or infection. The suggestion that suicide by burning is quick if somewhat painful is likely inaccurate.--eleuthero 20:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet again.
I have yet again removed everyone personal "wow wouldn't it be cool if someone cut their head off?" Cite any additions. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Take this down?
Anyone voting for taking this page down is basing it on personal opinions and loosly based facts. As someone of four true suicide attempts I must say it contains far too little information on the different ways of killing yourself. It'd be nice seeing some the likely timeframe and odds of success, as well as possible damage if failed. What's already on the page matches what your average 12-year old already knows, so don't claim it's "spreading the word" in any matter. Also, don't say suicidal people are suddenly going to kill themselves from some website impulse - it's offending their intelligence. If you're likely to commit suicide, it wont be a short text about suicide that makes you do it. Trust me, been there, done that, and my experience matches the few truly suicidal people I've talked to. -- Swede


 * I think this could definitely use more information. For any ethical concerns about this leading to suicide, rest assured that if we are totally realistic and provide as much information as we can about the issue, I think we will acturally discourage suicide. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Suicide Bombing...
The page doesn't even mention suicide bombings.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs)

"suicide" by stopping breathing
An earlier revision of this article said that Buddhist monks have killed themselves by stopping their breathing by willpower. This would definitely be interpreted as suicide by Western society. However, followers of Buddhist faith do not interpret this as suicide. I forgot the reason, though. I'm just posting this for your information. --Ixfd64 10:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I will post more information about this later. However, I need to ask someone who knows more on this subject first. --Ixfd64 10:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

carbon monoxide method
Is this method a form of poisoning or asphyxiation? Or is it both? Gflores Talk 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

add a "Controversies" section?
I am aware that is has been resolved that a disclaimer does not belong on any of the suicide pages. After careful consideration, I have come to agree with that decision. Yet, I consider that it is irresponsible not to cover the controversial nature of suicide manuals and the like in this article. There are many Wikipedia articles with a "controversies" section. Why should Suicide methods be any different? Indeed, I submit that not covering the controversy (which is not strictly a Wikipedia phenomenon btw) is in-and-of itself POV. Two good illustrations of a controversies sections can be found Same-sex marriage and Jimmy Wales. Ycaps123 18:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Since no one expressed any objections, I have added a controversies section to the article. My addition is by no means the definitive explanation of the controversial nature of suicide manuals and I invite all of you to make any additions/revisions that would enhance the entry.  I do, however, ask that you not remove the category without discussing it here first. Ycaps123 10:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed unreferenced claim
In the "slashing wrists" section, the following was written:

"Sometimes one who is Cutting their wrists, may not mean to cut as deep as they do, resulting in an accidental suicide. This is the case with more and more teens in the past decades."

I have removed the part about this happening to more and more teens because it is not backed up with any evidence. If someone has evidence for this, they should put it back with a relevant citation.

193.217.28.16 14:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Google warning"
As far as I know, this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, not a wikibooks. --84.249.252.211 22:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed the warning from the article. --Clawed 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)