Talk:Suicide methods

NOTE: Please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (2004 to 26 September 2005):
• Archive 2 (October 2005 - April 2006):
• Archive 3 (June 2006 - May 2008):

---

I think this article is incomplete

I am trying to find suicide methods that guarantee death and ensure that the person doesn't end up alive and crippled or somehow disables. Please include more methods and how to attempt them.

Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.208.171.1 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just Something to Consider with this particular Article

I love wikipedia, we all do, that's the beauty of it. However, by simply asking, is this section necessarily appropriate. Where exactly will this end? First it tells you that a noose could be used to kill yourself, then it lists it in methods...what next? Will it tell you how to make one, where to hang it, and how long it'll take?

I sincerely hope that the people here remove this article. Would that stop someone from committing suicide? I don't know, but it certainly wouldn't hinder their process. If anything, it provides a catalyst to those wanting to commit suicide a faster path into doing it...imagine if the process of their 'searching' did these people run across an article that helped them instead?

Then again, I'm one voice, what do you guys thinks? Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.94.68 (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article should be removed. I think this could in someway act as an aid to someone trying to commit suicide, and therefore is immoral. The suicide article is enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.57.230.43 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Shush. This page is completely useless to anyone planning to commit suicide, beyond replicating some very elementary knowledge available to anyone with a basic education human biology. You hardly need a medical doctorate to know if you set yourself on fire, you might experience some excruicating pain and die from the burns, or that shooting yourself in the head might not be good for your long term survival prospects, do you? The Flash powder page is far more useful to the suicidal. Strange your efforts are aimed here, isn't it? 94.192.227.0 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

what if you're doing a school project and need all this shiznit on suicide? huh? what you think were gonna make it up ourselves -.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.249.220 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly dislike this article

I strongly dislike this agree and believe that it should be moved whether or not does this article hold an NPOV stance. Its not just the way it's written. It's about content. A list like this could lead a person who was searching for suicide methods to commit suicide. Why not just delete this article before something negative happens and Wikipedia will/may have to face lawsuits and attention from the public media? I seriously have no idea why this article has to be here. List the methods? Fine. They have already been said in article Suicide. And that's plenty enough, isn't it? Prowikipedians (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And, what's more disturbing is that over the past TWO YEARS, there have been FIVE NOMINATIONS FOR THE REMOVAL OF THIS ARTICLE. Prowikipedians (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That someone or other stongly dislikes this article is given. The subject is contentious. However, the quarrel has always resulted in the solution that this article is morally bonafide. --Ezeu (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Five nominations merely mean there have been five people who wish to have it removed. I think the fact that it's been kept every single time is a fairly strong consensus now. I would go through some of the reasons why I support the existence of the article, but it's been so thoroughly hashed out in all the previous discussions it seems pointless. Read the archives and past AfD discussions. Eve Hall (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Keep it then. Then some Wikipedians like me are going to use it a how-to-commit-suicide guidebook. And why thank you. Lets have Wikipedia establish some negative notability someday when a major group suicide starts by citing Wikipedia as their number one source. Prowikipedians (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware of this, but people managed to kill themselvesin all sorts of ways before Wikipedia was even established. If someone is feeling suicidal, I sincerely doubt the existence or non-existence of this article is going to change their mind. And, unlike a Wikipedia article, most suicide notes do not cite their sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I don't know if YOU know about this, but WIKIPEDIA HAS BECOME ONE OF THE FIRST HITS FOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION.Prowikipedians (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as a how-to-commit-suicide guidebook it's pretty useless, actually. It doesn't give the necessary details required to carry out any but the most obvious methods - I can't imagine anyone wouldn't realise drowning involves immersion in water, for example. It doesn't give recipes for drug cocktails, doesn't give heights for jumping or hanging etc. A simple google search turns up masses of how-to information, for anyone who actually wants to know details. There is some rather shoddy unsourced material in there currently though, and I agree the article needs cleaning up. Eve Hall (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, then you tell me. Where's the list of homicide methods? I don't see it on Wikipedia, do I? Article Suicide is enough. Prowikipedians (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Portuguese penal code has to do with anything. Even if it applied in this situation, nobody is inciting or assisting anything. Since everything in the article needs a verifiable citation, then by definition we're not providing any information that isn't readily available elsewhere. In response to your previous comment, Wikipedia has a lot of information about homicide and murder, in particular a category with 88 articles and 18 sub-cats. Eve Hall (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Coolgamer (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Prowikipedians. This article is more like a "how to" guide than an encyclopedia article. Needs a major overhaul IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.200.219 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

People who want to commit suicide are going to do it one way or another. A better course of action would be keeping your opinion to yourself instead of trying to be the Internet Police. Coolgamer (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Research consensus is overwhelmingly against you on this. This research is referred to (for example) by the Irish Association of Suicidology on p 8 and pp 10-11 of its Media Guidelines, and they also say (p 8): "Providing specific details of a suicide method gives vulnerable people the knowledge they need to take their own life" and "Media portrayal doesn't just affect choice of method, it can increase the numbers of suicides, as the examples below on pp 10-11 indicate" and "Written media (i.e. newspapers, magazines, books and websites) are more likely to provoke imitation than broadcast media". Your suggestion (that information affects a choice between methods, but does not increase the overall outcome) is similar to the argument advanced for many years in support of tobacco advertising (that advertising affected a choice between brands but did not increase the amount of smoking). This argument was also discredited by research and tobacco advertising bans in Europe have followed. Cheers Chelseaboy (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This will be a hugely contentious request, but taking into account the number of people who are likely to read this article in order to discover ways in which to commit suicide, I think Wikipedia has a humanitarian duty to provide a link to some sort of counselling website in encyclopaedic fashion (possibly after the comment that most do not act on their urges).

CharlieRCD (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I say, "Keep it!" (if it can be reworked to be anything more than a list of ideas that anyone could dream up while sitting on the toilet). Maybe it is not intended as a how-to guide, but it is almost devoid of any sort of meaningful information. Certainly the fact that people object to the topic is utterly irrelevant. Never has the change-the-channel-if-you-don't-like-it argument been more apt than in defending controversial Internet content. In broadcasting, channel space is limited and there is a sense in which the content "comes into the home" and appears before relatively passive viewers, in particular, children. But censorship is dicey, even with broadcasting. On the Internet and within Wiki people who don't like it should just stay away. It is certainly true that this content (if better) might, in fact, aid people in doing something which others believe that they should be prevented from doing. But the Internet is not our nanny nor is it the morals police for a particular point-of-view. 74.242.247.197 (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand why this article has not been deleted. IT IS PRACTICALLY ASSISTING SUICIDE. We have enough educational material on suicide already. We do not need an article devoted to helping suicidal people to kill themselves. "the internet is not our nanny"? That is a ridiculous thing to say as it has nothing to do with this. In Wikipedia we have to follow the Wikipedia rules. I strongly disagree with this article. THIS IS WRONG! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This article does nothing of the sort, and methodology is a fairly important part of suicide as a subject. Certainly this article should refrain from becoming too instructional, for obvious reasons, but to ignore or remove it completely isn't necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.14.7 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this article may HELP suicide candidates (in a good way I mean). A quick glance through the different methods usually brings up issues that might very well prevent the suicide from suceeding and instead permanently crippling the survivor, a discouraging issue, just because you want to be dead doesn't mean you would accept to end crippled. Worries about fouling up the suicide attempt will of course make the suicidal person search for other ways, but this buys time, and with a (considerable) amount of luck, the interest in comitting suicide might be reduced somewhat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.7.194 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A member of a local family diagnosed with an incurable disease decided to spare her family the burden of caring for her, acquired a pistol, and shot herself in the head: she survived, totally paraluzed and a greater burden in many more ways than she realized. Suicide is not a viable answer to life's problems. We really do need to thing seriously about this. There are too many people who seem to promote suicide as something tragicly romantic but cool, in a Sorrows of Young Werther kind of way, to impressionable youth, for me to feel easy about a page devoted to "suicide methods" which sounds like what a despondent person would type into a search engine on a glum cloudy day. That automatically marks me as a pro-life bigot, phobic of alternate death styles, but apart from a subheading without how-to details under the article on suicide, do we really need a "suicide methods" page? Naaman Brown (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see any valid point, implicit nor explicit. Anyone who might have read the subsection on firearms within this article would be informed on the potential dangers of attempting to perform a suicide with such a technique -- the article clearly states that there is a possibility of surviving with numerous associated complications, such as chronic pain. If anything this article would discourage a suicidal person, not encourage.

Furthermore, there is no notion of suicide being "cool" in this article nor is there anything that suggests suicide is a viable answer to any problem.

I'm sorry that a relative has suffered from what you are describing, but sad as that may be, any argumentum ad misericordiam or an argument of the type "I don't like it" isn't a valid argument, it is a fallacy -- which should always be refrained from in talk pages. Posix memalign (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To make it plain: It is very easy to find Internet info on how to commit suicide. Removing this article would do nothing to stop people finding such information. So removing it wouldn't serve any purpose.

Cutting wrists

I do not accept this as truth, as cutting wrists is one of the most common types of self-harm, which normally has nothing to do with suicide. Cutting wrists is in fact very unlikely to kill a person, and should therefore not be called suicidal behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.210.34 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the wrist-cutting is basically if you're just looking for attention. If you're serious, the gun is pretty much the way to go. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hanssen, this is totally outragious for you to say this. Firstly, not all cutters are self-harming for attention. In fact very very few do it for attention. If wrist-cutting is for attention, then why do so many self-harmers hide their wounds. This kind of ignorance is what has put the world into a mess. I hate to be insulting, but that was completely uncalled for.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Although this may be the case in a few instances, though none that I can think of, cutting the wrists IS a genuine method of suicide, as it CAN cause fatal bleeding when the radial artery is severed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.184.119 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"none that I can think of". Self Harm is actually very very commonly found in the cutting of wrists, and although there is a possibility of death occurring from it, most people who self-harm do not know that. In reality most people who slit wrists are not suicidal. It makes no sense whatsoever do go for the wrists for a painful death when u can just as easily hit a more important organ. There are a huge number of self-harmers in the world, but very few are actually suicidal.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's entirely correct, but that's not the issue. The original point of this talk section seems to state that wrist-cutting shouldn't be considered a suicide method, which it most definitely is.

Is there any evidence which states that this is actually suicide, rather than accidental suicide? The sources we have only state that it can cause death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 10:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not all cutters do it for attention. I've cut in the past, but i let no one see my scars. Some of my friends do it, no ne see's them either. Cutting is just a way of letting out your pain through self harm. it takes the pain away from your heart and puts it in the wrist, but in a way that i think feels good. we don't do it because we want to die. Missedwardcullen (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Gunshot wound

Why is there no information on how to be sure of successfully executing a suicide by gun in one shot? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll want to visit the methods file for that type of information. SolarisBigot (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an exact reason as to why this article should be deleted. The fact that people want to teach people how to commit suicide IS assisting suicide. We have to delete this before it gets too far, if it isn't too far already. This is completely irrelevant to Suicide and there is already a basic list there. Starting a subject of such controversy is dangerous anyway. Delete this page NOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 10:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt a discussion page on Wikipedia is going to spawn a wave of suicides, and the idea that the article must be deleted before "it gets too far" ignores the fact that Google readily suggests lots of related searches when you search for "ways to commit suicide." Unless you have a way to rid Google, Yahoo and every other major search engine of all references to suicide methods, there are a lot of ways someone can find out information about suicide methods. (The link I provided is usually divined from Google with the search "methods file," which isn't terribly imaginative or specialized.) The person posted a question that related to the content of the article, to which I responded with information that is far more specialized than what the article provides. Some distraught soul looking to end it all isn't likely to come to the discussion page when looking for details on ways to do the deed.

Simply put: let's be realistic. If someone is totally focused on committing suicide, removing one tiny drop of water from the ocean of information won't prevent the situation from happening. If the article is to be deleted, it should be due to lack of verifiable information, not because someone might stumble upon a method of self-destruction not otherwise available from numerous other sites. SolarisBigot (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia should keep the suicide page but leave any assisting suicide out of it. Agree?

How exactly is Wikipedia assisting? If I provide information on how to make ice, and someone uses ice to kill a person, did I "assist" the killer? If that's the case, there are literally thousands of articles that will have to be removed or edited to remove any "how it's done" information. SolarisBigot (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This senttence is false: "Death most often results if the bullet enters above the ear. This destroys the parietal lobe, which is responsible for breathing and critical life processes" The parietal lobe is responsible for sensory integration. The brainstem is responsible for breathing and other critical life processes.

u forgot somefing

What about poisoning and starvation methods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.127.114 (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Poisoning's got a section, but yeah, starvation could be included, probably with a link to 'hunger strike'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.135.137 (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't bleeding to death be in it's own category here?

What about freezing? It's mentioned in The Complete Manual of Suicide, but not on this page. 210.54.229.233 (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

re-organization

Would it be helpful if the methods were organized somehow, perhaps "political", "murder-suicide", etc.?joo-yoon (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Line that needs rewriting

Hello all people. I do agree that this page should be kept, but there is one line that is inappropriate, not academic/lacking a NPOV stance, and because of the controversy on this page, I don't want to edit it myself. Anyone who wants to edit it, it's in the drug overdose section. Here it is - "Considering the very high doses needed, vomiting or falling asleep before taking enough of the active agent might be a serious hurdle." That's not appropriate at all. It leans that the article IS meant to be a how-to on committing suicide, and the rest of it obviously shows it's not. Let's get to work, people! WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, when I read that part it did strike me as 'odd', if that makes sense. But I don't quite know how to go about editing that...I guess it could be removed as it's not referenced etc...this is my first visit to this page though, so I wouldn't want to go about editing a controversial page in that way yet either! 94.192.52.244 (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Positive aspect(s) of this article?

I don't think this article provides any form of catalyst to perform the act of suicide for those at risk to it.

Either way, as long as the consensus is to keep the article (which I assume is the reason it is still here) wouldn't it be a positive aspect if the article includes treatment of the various methods of suicide? By treatment I mean the case that the suicide has failed or the case that the victim is caught in the act of suicide by some arbitrary person and a rescue/emergency treatment/resuscitation is attempted by said person. The main aspect of the article is to explain the suicide method itself, but I think it would be a positive aspect if treatment would be outlined with links to more detailed information for each specific technique. Any such knowledge might be useful to the lay person -- although general emergency treatment and first aid could (and should) be read instead there is no way to know that every reader of this article actually bothers to read and learn emergency treatment and first aid. The fact is that someone reads this article, out of interest or boredom, either way, why not include such useful information that could potentially help to save lives? Also, some good faithed help might actually make the injury worse, e.g. moving someone with a broken neck after failed defenestration.

Another minor positive aspect (if you can call it that) would be to describe the sensory experience of the patient in each case (preferably worst case where applicable) as descriptions of suffering or potential suffering might be a variable which makes the act of suicide less appealing to those at risk?

I think every technique should include at least:

• The technique itself.
• How the body reacts to it (perhaps with somewhat emphasis on the negative aspects, i.e. pain, discomfort).
• How to perform treatment.
• How to not perform treatment.

Posix memalign (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Water and salt

both water and salt (in sufficient quantities can kill a person aswell. mention in article; not the most certain death however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.181.52 (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree water and salt need an honorable mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.125.34 (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Put something on to help people

Wikipedia is the first place that most people turn to to help them find out about stuff. So I reckon that there should be somesort of a link to a site that helps people work through their sucide wish so that they don't do it. I think that there are like RedCross things about it but I'm not sure. Instead of telling people the possible mothods, it should show who they can go to for help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.239.188 (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to ignore all rules or have some sort of Wikipedia community wide discussion and add some sort of information for help on this page. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a telephone directory, a self-help guide, or an advice column. While helping someone to not commit suicide is in many, if not most cases, a laudable goal, Wikipedia is not the proper forum.DSZ (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And IAR is a means to and end, not the end itself. If you actually have to cite IAR, you're doing it wrong. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Links to sites offering help would be totally inappropriate in an encyclopedia. By all means engage in discussion with any users who offer threats (only if that is even policy? Not sure it is...) Sceptre I don't get your point about not citing IAR. It is always useful to offer explanation as to why you are doing something, especially when your actions could be interpreted wrongly. You could also try expressing your opinions in a less dickish manner? C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 10:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You can ignore all rules to do something, but you shouldn't cite IAR; see What "Ignore all Rules" does not mean. The odds are, someone who is looking up suicide methods on Wikipedia probably isn't going to commit suicide. I think that a warning on most of the articles about suicide would affect neutrality and our encyclopedic mission. It's hard to sacrifice our feelings for the encyclopedic cause, especially on topics such as this, but it really needs to be done... Sceptre ^(talk) 10:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

help me please, help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.210.148 (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no Murder Methods/Killing Methods page. There should be no Suicide Methods page. I do not care about the morality, I care about consistency. This page exists because it is an agenda being pushed by the right-to-suicide types. This page is sufficient: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Causes_of_death Please do remember to actually address my argument there is no Murder Methods page. 121.209.145.205 (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason why there shouldn't be an article on methods of murder. Many deletion debates have shown there is consensus for the existence of this page, I imagine most of those arguments would also apply to an article on methods of murder. Indeed, if the lack of consistency bothers you, why not create one? Eve Hall (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hemeway study of household firearms.

Reading the Hemenway study I see that the data didn't show a correlation between household firearms and suicide rate. This is not the same as saying there was "no such association ", it is simply saying that based on their data that they could not see whether there was an association or not. The present wording implies falsely that Hemenway found that there was no association. This should be corrected, but Yaf has reverted my attempt to make this correction twice now in quick succession. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The lack of correlation between household firearms and suicide rates precisely indicates no association. A correlation was found, however, amongst one small age group, i.e., children, as also noted in the same sentence. Falsely claiming the paper is "inconclusive", however, to disparage the paper because you disagree with the findings, is simply unacceptable. It is but pushing a POV value judgement onto the paper itself, which is Original Research on your part. Lets simply state the facts, quote the facts found in the paper, and not call the paper "inconclusive" when in actuality it did reach a conclusion that there was not a correlation for most age groups. Yaf (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, a lack of correlation doesn't indicate "yes association" or "no association". All it says is that the data wasn't good enough to know, in other words the data was inconclusive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, a lack of correlation indicates no relationship, which is the same as saying in English "no association". If there were any correlation, whether positive correlation or negative correlation, there would be an association. Go back and read some elementary college statistics textbooks. Correlation values can range from -1.0 to 1.0, including 0.0. At the zero crossing, there is no correlation and no association. Statistics 101. It is POV and false to equate a correlation value of 0.0 with "inconclusive". Yaf (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you read that paper? It says that "the association lost its statistical significance". Without statistical significance you cannot draw a statistical conclusion, "inconclusive". You are trying to draw a conclusion, 'no association', where there is not significant data. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course I have read the paper. But, stating "the association lost its statistical significance" is statistician-speak for "no correlation". There was obviously sufficient data to analyze, else there would not have been a paper. "No correlation" clearly means "no association" which is the same as "the association lost its statistical significance', not that there were no data to analyze. I shall not participate in this stupid dialogue any further. Yaf (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. You can have a statistically significant data set showing correlation, or showing no correlation. You jump to an incorrect conclusion that when the data set is statistically insignificant. You cannot arbitarily choose one conclusion and ignore the other, when the reality is that the data set was insignificant to reach any conclusion. The paper describes that there are significant problems with the quality of the international data, and therefore making conclusions is hampered. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My fellow bipeds, could we not simply present the data and allow the reader to interpret it in their own way? 'Show, not tell', I believe is the policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.227.0 (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Useless

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

Since there is a page covering "causes of death" and suicide is "self-induced death", there is no need to create/update/preserve this article other than trying to get personal attention and/or prove something. You might feel suicidal and feel an urge to anonymously express your despair to millions, yet *DO* please leave wiki out of it by not writing totally obsolete articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.58.224 (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your link perfectly illustrates the necessity of this page or a category to equal its purpose. The List of causes of death by rate is a list page with every entry linking to extensive articles on that particular way of dying. Every, that is, save for the catch-all entry of "intentional injuries". That entry, however, has hundreds if not thousands of articles detailing its tools and methods including, among many others, firearms and military tactics. One article on self-inflicted intentional injury is no less necessary to a complete encyclopedia than any of those, and no more immoral (although, as exhaustively noted, its morality is irrelevant because Wikipedia is not censored).

And, just to disclaim, I am in no way suicidal. I am a social scientist and mass transit enthusiast coming to this page looking for information on the societal phenomenon of vehicular suicide, which I found with convenience and in much more reliable form than on a random site that in all likelihood IS actively encouraging its readers to commit suicide. I wish success for this article as for all others, and encourage it to continue to rid itself of naysayers and shit editors. Contributions/80.221.34.183 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we possibly include a link to an anti-suicide charity?

In case someone is looking up this page for instructions, or in any case inspiration, could there be a link or something eyecatching to the Samaritans or similar? Preferably at the top, preferably attention grabbing? Wikipedia is the first source I (and thousands of others) check for virtually everything. 80.73.215.172 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is already discussed above. If you have something to add to that debate, comment there please. The attitude of anti-suicide charities is a joke, regardless. 94.192.227.0 (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protection?

I have noticed that this page gets a decent amount of vandalism. Also, due to its controversial nature, I would like to propose that this page be at least lightly protected. Honestly I'm surprised it isn't already. -CharonM72 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

With a total of 36 edits during the first 20 days of this month, the volume of vandalism is probably not insurmountable to the Wikipedia community. Being controversial is not in and of itself a reason to protect an article. I'd rather encourage more and preferably better referenced edits than less of them. 80.221.34.183 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I vote for protection too, but on different grounds -- I think protection should be given more often and more readily to pages that get vandalized.

Here are my reasons:

• It is very tiring as a Wikipedia member to have to correct and fix vandalized pages, it is not only very boring but a complete waste of my time that could instead be spent on something useful, I've personally come close a lot of times to just give up and let articles be ruined.
• It is true that articles often have a lot of people who correct vandalism, BUT most of the Wikipedians who correct such vandalism only do so casually, they will e.g. not notice if there have been multiple edits recently and often only correct the last instance of vandalism -- allowing some vandalism to slip through, some of which can be subtle, yet very damaging -- e.g. changing numbers. Most articles only have a few dedicated people who throughly inspect changes and thus protect it properly and avoid this issue, if it were not for these people, many articles would suffer a lot.
• People without an account very rarely contribute anything noteworthy to an article, people without an account usually don't know or care about the philosophy, guidelines nor rules of Wikipedia; furthermore they often don't even know the syntax, such as they have no idea what the syntax is for making references.

People who don't bother with creating an account are in general also too lazy to learn how to edit Wikipedia properly, thus they shouldn't be allowed to touch articles that often get pestered.

I'm personally quite sick and tired of vandalism, and I'm certain that I'm not the only one. Please protect this article now and keep these morons away.Posix memalign (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Useless

Morality/Ethics aside, this subject is not encyclopedic and really contributes nothing-- even the dullest individual knows that jumping off of a building results in death. And, as another person mentioned, it has a inherent problem: "Where does it end?" There are thousands of ways to commit suicide. I suggest that this be deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.113.116 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What the dullest individual can be expected to know is probably a subjective assessment. For example, I thought even the dullest individual would know a) to not rehash tired old arguments, b) to not resort to an ad populum like "even the dullest individual knows..." and c) to sign their posts, but there you went and proved me wrong in all three respects! 80.221.34.183 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh snap! You got my number. I made a whole new section and rehashed the argument because I feel so strongly about deleting this article. Believe me, I understand how much work people must have put into it-- I just don't think Wikipedia is the right place for it. And I personally spoke to a VERY experienced psychologists friend who was absolutely shocked by the content and believed that educating suicidal individuals on potential methods was dangerous. Let me rephrase that ... Experts say this article is very dangerous.--75.67.157.198 (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There are positive aspects about the article per se. Try to write the material in a manner that puts emphasis on the negative sides, i.e. what can go wrong, pain and suffering -- without moving away from the encyclopedic style. There is also the positive aspect that the subsections can inform how to aid in rescue from failed suicide attempts; i.e. what do to, and what not to do.

What are really the negative aspects? What information contained in this article is actually useful for the suicidal person in the act of suicide? There is no "step by step" guide here on how to exactly perform any said suicidal technique. Posix memalign (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

..........

i dont see why you some of you want this deleted. I say if some one wants to commit suicide let them it's there own life.You have no say in what they do with it.this article gives brife summarys about different ways to end your life if you see one that fits you look more into it and find out more about it. find out how to make a noose of where to shot your self in the head for certain death —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.176.143 (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Patient?

Why does this article refer to the person commiting suicide as a "patient"? It sounds ass-backwards to me; I've always thought of patients as people who are being nursed back to health. Death seems as far from health as you can get. Even if it's assumed that suicide is a cure for depression or a poor life, the autonomy inherent to suicide makes "patient" a poor choice of words. If I take aspirin for a headache, I'm not my own patient. I dunno. Maybe I'm missing something. If so, fill me in, somebody. If not, I'll be glad to change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InedibleHulk (talk • contribs) 07:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I can shed some light on this notion. The term patient is used to describe a person who receives medical treatment from a medical professional, the term is also frequently use to describe person in need of help in i.a. first aid texts, where the person providing care is not a professional.

Most people who commit suicide have a psychiatric disorder at the time of death; everyone who is having real suicidal thoughts should receive help, preferably from a medical professional such as a psychologist or psychiatrist or a general medical practitioner and would thus be considered a patient, a suicidal person who didn't "succeed" receives first aid care from a non-professional would also be considered a temporary patient of said person in that context.

Furthermore I think that by applying the term patient it implies that this person is not someone who is not feeling well and is someone who should seek help -- the primary goal of the article (as this is an encyclopedia) is to provide information in a cold and hard encyclopedic manner, but I should dare say that at least the second goal (although in my view it should be the first) should be to use a tone that puts emphasis on the negative aspects on suicide, how to help and how to prevent; although I'm not sure exactly how to incorporate all of that without breaking the encyclopedic premise.

I can agree that the term patient might be used in places where it is not obvious this person is receiving help, but again the idea is to stress that this is a person who suffers from something and we are looking for a solution, but I think you can more readily agree that in what I wrote e.g. here: "As in any class IV haemorrhage, aggressive resuscitation is required to prevent death of the patient; standard emergency bleeding control applies for pre-hospital treatment.", the term patient can be applied, it can likewise be applied in most of the other cases where it is currently used throughout the article.Posix memalign (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Pestides

30% of deaths from suicide are from pesticides yet this is not mentioned. Gunnell D, Eddleston M, Phillips MR, Konradsen F (2007). "The global distribution of fatal pesticide self-poisoning: systematic review". BMC Public Health. 7: 357. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-357. PMC 2262093. PMID 18154668.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Need better refs

This section so poorly referenced and needs to be improved:

According to the Centre for Suicide Research at Oxford University, "[a]ll research suggests that showing, in detail, methods of suicide does result in an increase of those methods immediately afterwards, so portrayal of methods of suicide is ill-advised."^[2] According to Mike Cobb of The Samaritans, an organisation which works with people contemplating suicide, "even showing a method on Casualty has led to an increase."^[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to delete

We have had 7 attempts to delete this article all based on the NYTs claim that exposure increases the risk! I have provided some proper evidence which is mixed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)