Talk:Suicide/archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 2004 and April 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Suicide/Archive03.


Contents

"Patient Suicides"

The change committed at 2005-04-23 about the 650 suicides per 100000 inhabitants per year(?) in F.Rep.Germ is questionable, because the source clearly states up to today, that the rate is correct (http://www.dghs.de/hintergr/suizid.htm). They even say, that this rate is constant since 150 years. Since the official suicide rate is about 20/100000 this number is quite interesting, I think. --83.129.173.180 00:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Statistics

Recently added by an anon:

A recent report by WHO states that nearly a million people take their own lives every year, more than those murdered or killed in war. World Health Organisation figures show a suicide takes place somewhere in the world every 40 seconds. The numbers are highest in Europe's Baltic states, where around 40 people per 100,000 commit suicide each year. While men make up most suicides, more women actually attempt to take their own lives.

Which report? Can anyone verify this? For articles of this nature, I'd prefer to replace weasel words with verifiable information wherever feasible. I'll even settle with whichever magazine or whatever where the anonymous user learned this. --Ardonik.talk() 20:26, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Although I can't take credit for the anon addition, I have added a link to the WHO report. I wasn't sure if I should do that or create a reference. Below are the first two paragraphs of this report taken from the introduction.
According to WHO estimates, in the year 2000, approximately one million people died from suicide, and 10 to 20 times more people attempted suicide worldwide. This represents one death every 40 seconds and one attempt every 3 seconds, on average.
This also indicates that more people are dying from suicide than in all of the several armed conflicts around the world and, in many places, about the same or more than those dying from traffic accidents. In all countries, suicide is now one of the three leading causes of death among people aged 15-34 years; until recently, suicide was predominating among the elderly, but now suicide predominates in younger people in both absolute and relative terms, in a third of all countries.
Please format the reference as appropriate. I am still learning about style matters like this.--CloudSurfer 04:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Since writing the above I have taken the "Statistics" entry and incorporated it into the Epidemiology. I removed the sentence about males vs females as it was a duplication of information a couple of paragraphs down. --CloudSurfer 05:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Considered Suicide"

"To be considered suicide, the death must be a central component and intention of the act, not just a certain consequence; hence, suicide bombing is considered a kind of bombing rather than a kind of suicide, and martyrdom usually escapes religious or legal proscription."

Considered by who? This seems slightly POV, or at least very vague... Does anyone know exactly who this refers to?

Peregrine981 06:49, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Intent is required before acts become specific crimes. Thus the intent to permanently deprive is required for theft. The intent to kill is required for murder, otherwise it is manslaughter. While not a lawyer, I believe that this concept is what is behind the section in question since it relates to legal and religious interpretations of an act. If so, the POV would then be a generally accepted legal POV. --CloudSurfer 09:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I assume that most people who try to committ suicide are mentally ill (usually suffering from severe depression). The conclusion I draw from this is that suicide is usually not intnetional. I think intent brings up interesting questions. First, couldn't one claim insanity (although one would need be dead to require a defense: "There are only legal consequences when there is death..."). Secondly, why isn't this discussed in this and other articles? For example, the "cry for help" is often described (as previously on Suicide methods) as an attention getter, when it seems it would more accurately be described as an alarm indicating an unintentional malfunction. Hyacinth 02:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clarification is greatly necessary here, please! Even if it's accepted legal POV--fine, but tell us that. There are surely conflicting perpectives! Plus...does this deserve to be in the first paragraph, or may it be potentially a POV placement to indirectly respond to other questions? Dpr 02:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slit wrist picture

I am rather disturbed about this picture for a few reasons. It is likely that people with suicidal thoughts will come to this article to read it. The picture almost seems an invitation to use this method. Secondly, the caption is misleading as I doubt that it truly IS a common method of suicide. It may be a common method of self-harm and may have been a common method of suicide in Roman times but from my understanding it is now an unusual method of actual suicide (resulting in death). Thirdly, it is in poor taste for anyone who has themselves or who has had a friend or relative try this method. --CloudSurfer 04:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I uploaded the photo. I understand your feelings on the matter. I chose this image because it was rather stylized, and not particularly realistic. (Believe me, there are lots of more realistic suicide images available in the public domain.) If a better image can be found, I don't mind replacing this one. I don't believe that this image will invite or encourage anyone to commit suicide, but I do want to be respectful to people.
(By the way, according to the CDC, slitting one's wrist is not a common method of successful suicide, but it is a very common method of attempted suicide. I personally would prefer to show a largely unsuccessful method.) – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 05:12, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I understand the need for graphics but I still wonder if this is the article for them. Perhaps you might like to read the article on copycat suicide for more background on the effect of media reporting of suicide. One of the usually suggested guidelines is NOT to report means as this leads to an increased incidence. Another common guideline is not to show pictures.
Cutting the wrists leads to two main problems. As you say, it does not often lead to death.
1. Any cut that draws blood leads to scars which the person then has for the rest of their life and contribute to stigma as well as acting as a reminder.
2. Deeper cuts can sever tendons and nerves leading to lifelong impairment in the use of the hand.
Have a look at the copycat article and some of the links from there and see what you feel then. Also let's see if others have views on this. --CloudSurfer 07:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
An afterthought about the caption. Suicide = self inflicted death, it does not include attempts which require the word attempt to qualify it. In the interim while we await a decision on the picture I have ammended the caption to reflect this. --CloudSurfer 07:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm conflicted. Picture or no? What do other people think? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 15:50, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with frequent suicidal thoughts and a problem with self-harm, I would suggest removing the image. I don't feel it adds to the article and I do feel it is provocative and distressing (although I certainly appreciate it was chosen carefully and could have been a lot more explicit). I realise that I am the wrong person to give a clear-headed and neutral view on this, but perhaps it's also useful to hear from someone who is in the group under discussion. I don't think that every article needs illustrating and I don't think that this image really gives any more information to the article. In this case I think the potential distress outweighs the benefits of the image. CloudSurfer's point that people feeling suicidal are likely to seek out this article certainly fits my experience. I think it is responsible to take that into consideration, although I'm not suggesting we censor the article to make it completely "safe". I considered logging out to write this anonymously by the way, but I'll put my name to my opinion .... sannse (talk) 16:14, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bcorr has removed the image so I guess that makes the vote that has been voiced as 3:1 in favour of removal of the picture. User:Quadell, keep up the good work on pictures. I guess the lesson on this one is to put ourselves in the shoes of a sufferer or relative of any condition for which anyone is considering adding a graphic. If the graphic might reasonably upset them then we should think twice about inserting it. Somewhere in the Wiki manuals there are some guidelines on avoiding disturbing photographs, I just can't remember where. --CloudSurfer 17:34, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It seemed to me that sannse's concerns (which ring very true) are important enough to merit its removal from the article -- but it's no reflection on Quadell's work, and I appreciate that Quadell looked for a less disturbing photo. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked my wife (a psychologist), and she thought the article would be better without the pic. So needless to say, I consent to the picture's removal. Thanks, all, for being so kind about a difficult disagreement on an inflamatory topic. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:05, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Quadell (talk) (help)[[]], thanks to all involved, particularly you, for being calm and reasonable about the process. Consensus is a great thing and can only lead to a better Wikipedia. All the best to all. --CloudSurfer 05:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Gary Powers' suicide pin

A suicide pin sounds dubious, although this appears in several reports. What kind of toxin might have been used? Does anyone have any sources for this? -- Karada 09:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This website seems to have an authoritative version on this subject if you accept that it is a fair representation of the original news article which is based on an interview with Power's son.
"Some in the public thought Powers rather than being captured should have committed suicide with the tiny poison laced pin he had been given. ... U-2 pilots were never told they had to use the suicide pin, which was hidden in a silver dollar on a necklace, the younger Powers said. It was provided as an option for a captured spy who was being tortured, he said."
Another article said it was in a silver dollar on a chain around his neck. As to what the poison was, no doubt it was extremely toxic to be so small, and would have been selected to not cause too much suffering. --CloudSurfer 02:44, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


NPOV effect of the term "commit" suicide

It's been noted in these talk pages that use of the term "commit" with reference to suicide is generally pejorative and prejudicial, denoting the perpetration of an offense, whether moral or legal. I agree. Nevertheless the expression commit suicide is used over twenty times in this article. This is not a neutral POV.

It's far too easy to choose other terms, including: chose suicide, ended his or her life, etc. Accordingly, unless presented with compelling evidence for continued use of the term, I will change it to neutral language.--NathanHawking 22:25, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

Please do. This article needs LOTS of work and that is one of them. When in doubt use good old simple English e.g. "kill themselves". Please avoid terms like "successful suicide" which connote a value to the completed act. --CloudSurfer 23:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm - "commit suicide" is so common I wouldn't worry about it (but don't mind it being changed either); "successful" just means that the act went as planned. There can be successful suicides, successful acts of terrorism, successful acts of genocide, etc. It doesn't lend a value as far as I can see... Evercat 23:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Commonness does not make a term emotionally neutral. The expression commit suicide does have negative connotations to the majority of thoughtful readers, I believe. For acts of commission, we rarely or never use the term neutrally, e.g, we do not commit eating, we do not commit handshakes, we do not commit singing, we do not commit hikes in the woods. We "commit" felonies, sins and, in a society biased against ending one's own life, suicide.
Whether "successful" connotes a desirable achievement would depend upon the context, I would say.--NathanHawking 23:58, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)


"Commit" is a word that has a specific legal meaning. I have just looked it up in the SOED. The appropriate definition in this context is, "To perpetrate or perform (in a bad sense); as, a crime, or folly, etc." I guess that does make it POV. Have a look at the article on Copycat suicide for part of my reasoning behind not using the word "successful". When the media use the term "successful suicide" it tends to increase the incidence of suicide. I would suggest that means it is POV for those thinking about doing it. And, Wikipedia is part of the media. --CloudSurfer 23:35, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have largely removed the word commit from the article except where it remains in either its legal or perjorative sense. Thus it remains in those areas of the religious section where it is condemned. One simple method is to use suicide as a verb. This may jar with some but it seems kosher from the SOED. An anon writer recently did a lot of good copyediting but I have reverted a couple of their edits as they introduced inaccuracies. Most particularly in the legal entry in the introduction and in the UK change from coal gas to natural gas. I have also changed the prevention section and added a treatment section which basically refers the reader to individual articles. --CloudSurfer 11:59, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good. I'll have a look when I have time. I've been giving some thought to a significant reorganization of the article soon, but need to let that gestate mentally first. Merriam-Webster lists suicide as a verb too, but I'm reluctant to use it because it strikes my (American) ear as somewhat odd and perhaps not widely enough used yet for an encyclopedia article. Since there are alternatives, even though wordier, I'd opt for them. Less jarring, as you note.--NathanHawking 20:51, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)


Parenticide

Parentacide is the term used to describe a child killing one or both parents. Although the subject is as abhorrent as suicide or infantecide, it is a part of our life that cannot be dismissed.

Parentacide dates back to Greek mythology, where Oedipus killed his father Laius and married his mother Jocasta. Frued coined the term Oedipus complex to describe a state of psychosexual development and awareness first occuring at the age of 3 1/2 years.

In 1989 Lyle and Erik Menendez commited parentacide when they murdered both of their parents in cold blood. Although the murders were at least partially motivated by money, the brothers alleged their father had abused them, which was their justification for the killing.

Jeremy Bamber committed parentacide by proxy and was convicted in 1986 of killing his adoptive parents, sister, and her two six year old sons. Although money was thought to be the motive for this killing spree, the fact that he was adopted indicates that the reasons behind the murders were less clear cut. Being adopted, Bamber very likely suffered from adopted child syndrome, which is a psychological maladjustment to the knowledge that his real parents had given him up for adoption.

I'm a bit puzzled why User:217.206.168.163 chose to add the above information to this talk page. It sounds like it should go in other articles. And, for the record, the correct spellings are parenticide and infanticide. I changed the section header, but didn't change the poster's text, even though it appears to be intended as article text, as I believe discussion-text edits are the responsibility of the original poster. — Jeff Q 14:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Animal Suicide

It appears that some animal death is a form of suicide. For example, whales or octopusses 'suicides'. Perhaps the article should explore this topic. ---

Actually, I doubt many animals have concious thought, so they shouldnt be considered to commit suicide. But animals that are self-aware, like the chimp could be considered. But from what I know, they usuually dont commit it unless they're in severe distress, for example..in labatories.-Spyder

I have been digging and digging trying to find a definitive answer on this topic, yet none is to be found...On May 3, 2005, it was reported that 5 dogs had leapt to their deaths seemingly without provocation from a bridge in Dumbarton, Scotland ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/location/story.cfm?l_id=154&ObjectID=10113715). That's the closest I've found yet, and this was prompted by my witnessing a dog seemingly trying to drown itself this morning (Dec. 27, 2005). It was an old dog, nearly blind, though not completely, as it responded to shadows and movement, and it walked off a ledge without hesitation two times and after hitting the water, ceased all movement, face down in the water. After fishing it out twice, I had to keep him from repeating the act for over 20 minutes while waiting for the authorities to rescue him. Ironically, this lake is 20 minutes from a bridge known as the Dumbarton bridge, in Newark, California! The dog was clearly in pain, and had no identification...

Firearms in the Czech Republic

However, in the Czech Republic, firearms are similarly commonplace, and the most popular method is jumping, most often from bridges.

That doesnt look resonable. My impression, althougt based on very limited knowledge of USA reality, is that firearms are much more common in USA.

The impression can be supported by some statistics. [1] quotes estimate of National Rifle Association. In US arms are in possesion of 60 million people, about 20% of population. In Czechia are cca 600.000 arm holders [2], about 6% of population. But 73.476 are merely collectors, 122.568 sportsman, 131.350 hunters (registered). Only about 250.000 Czechs have firearms for protection, which means 2%. IMO the people in possesion of arms for no specific pourpose, is the most significant.

According to [3] most common means of acomplished suicide are hanging 59%, use of firearm 9,6% and jumps 9,5%. These terms are long-term stable. Increasing is portion of poisoning.

jumping, most often from bridges seems to based on anecdotal knowledge of Prague. There is a bridge in Prague (Nuselský most) frequently used by suiciders. (more than 300 suiciders jumped from the bridge.

--Wikimol 23:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evolution and suicide...

I'm curious as to the use of terminology in the section "evolutionary explanations". There seems to be an assumption that "evolutionists" (a term I have a particular distaste for, but anyway) need to find an explanation as to how suicide can be justified in evolutionary terms. This seems to imply that creationists are mounting a critique of evolution based on the idea that evolution can't explain suicides. Is this the case? Do creationists actually make this argument? --Robert Merkel 03:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the actual assumption is that all things are explainable through evolution. Suicide just seems like a harder thing to explain than things like eyebrow plucking. Hyacinth 02:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suicide prevention

  1. Reducing the quantity of dosages supplied in packages of non-prescription medicines e.g. aspirin.

That seems like a rather dumb way of suicide prevention. If someone really wanted to kill themself, they wouldnt mind buying a couple boxes of OTC medicine. I hope nobody has really considered using this method. ----Arm

We may as well list "Hide the knives". If what I was told is true (AND I DOUBT IT: that some acid in aspirin causes one's organs to painfully swell causing death) a much better method would be to publicise the quality of death caused by OTC medications. Hyacinth 02:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, in the UK... or, ooh, perhaps I misremember: but I thought they could only sell one box at a time? Does that ring any bells? Not much use in an urban centre, but if you were in less retail focused parts of a country, could put a dampener on your attempt. --bodnotbod 04:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Anything's possible. Walmart cards for spraypaint. Hyacinth 05:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't seem so dumb to me; unless people research carefully, they'll probably just chug whatever's on hand. If a single bottle becomes less potent, I can imagine it preventing successful attempts and getting more people psychiatric attention. --Chinasaur 09:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Think about it, a good sized bottle of 500 mg of paracetamol per pill should be more than enough to produce a toxic dose. All I know about aspirin and Motrin is that they irritate your stomach at high doses. So whats the point? Going after customers who found some Tylenol on sale? --Arm

Baltic Suicide

"It is probable that the incidence of suicide is widely under-reported due to both religious and social pressures, possibly by as much as 100% in some areas"

"The numbers are highest in Europe's Baltic states, where around 40 people per 100,000 die by suicide each year. "

The first quote actually causes the second. The suicide rate in the Nordic countries is often reported to be high because they have very little corruption, are scrupulous when it comes to information gathering and have a low population density (which means that everyone knows what it is really going on so there is little point in lying about it). There are also relatively few other threats to life that can be used to mask suicide in the rather quiet Nordic lands.

As far as I know more advanced methods of measurement have disproved the myth that the Nordic countries have the highest rates of suicide. Given all that I wonder how useful that part of the article actually is.

Also using Baltic instead of Nordic is a bit ambiguous since it can refer to many European states.

--Zeth 11:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Suicide websites

Does anybody have any knowledge on this topic? The recent arrest of a guy for trying to get several people together online to commint suicide all at the same time? And ABC News did a report the other night about several Japanese suicide websites where people meet and then plan suicides together. They mentioned at least three mass suicides involving up to 8 people killing themselves by starting fires in a vehicle so that they could all die of CO poisoning. RickK 07:47, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

How many times more likely?

"Those with a history of such attempts are 100 times more likely to eventually end their own lives than those without." Does this figure have any evidence to support it? Shouldn't that be referenced? If it is just an estimate, why not simply write "are more likely" without including the number of times? Xrchz 02:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/i/Talk%7ESuicide_archive02_84e3.html"