Talk:Suicide

Speedy Delete?
Why? >.< Hoogli (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Subscription Drugs"?
What exactly are these? I've never heard the term before. Hoogli (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several papers/articles that claim that some subscription drugs increase suicidal tendencies, by altering the brain chemic, some affect only certain age groups or have a long term effect (especially in children and teenagers). --Panic (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean prescription drugs? (I'm from the US, maybe the term is different elsewhere) Hoogli (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, yup probably my mistake... Subscription is the paper need to get some of the most active substances (legally controlled). Prescription is mostly a medical act, that can result or not in a subscription (legal paper, that can also have economical value to the state or other entities) to the patient (in some places of the world not only medical doctors can prescribe drugs, ie: Midwifes in Holland for instance can do it also, if I remember it correctly), since I was thinking on the level of control, not on the act of prescription itself I don't know what best qualifies it...
 * I did a google search and you get things like:
 * "...direct-mail subscription drug program...", "Annual Subscription of Drugs Cases..." or "...potential interactions between subscription drugs...", so I think both of us may be correct, English is not my natural language so some stuff may be lost in translation but the distinction seems relevant...  --Panic (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Scrapping the Considering Others pages
I don't think the content on the pages linked from Suicide; Suicide/Saying Goodbye and Suicide/Suicide Notes, is helpful. It's just unsourced personal opinion and plain obvious stuff. More the sort someone would write as a mental exercise while contemplating suicide rather than something useful to someone wanting to know about the topic.

The book might discuss suicide notes, but a this-is-how-to-write-a-suicide-note section is going to be inherently flawed unless it takes into account all the various issues surrounding it and the different situations a person might be in. These two pages don't even begin to do so. --Swift (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a stub. It can be useful to deals with the impact of a suicide on others, people that have had a suicide in the family etc... --Panic (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As might be obvious, I agree with Swift. Exactly this type of unsourced personal doesn't live up to our inclusion criteria, which was one of the reasons I brought this book up at WB:RfD.  I think removing/replacing this content would go a long way to improving this book. Thenub314 (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It can be useful if it actually contributes something. It doesn't. It implies a certain state of mind and the logic is broken (see the first three sentences for an amazing example of syllogism from another world).
 * This would be a stub if it laid out the issues surrounding bidding farewell that were more applicable to a broad range of situations. Currently, it implies too much and categorises based on that. That isn't useful.
 * The topic should be covered, but is probably best done so separately depending on the situation. It should furthermore focus on issues rather than methods, as they are more transferable to various situations. --Swift (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the previous comment referred specifically to Suicide/Saying Goodbye. I'll agree that Suicide/Suicide Notes is considerably better. --Swift (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Unusual methods useful?
Does anyone think it's useful to have the Suicide section? Personally it just looks like uninformative gore. I can see that it's interesting in the "wow, that's wacky!" sense, but I don't see its merit as a "hmm, my life is more full for having learnt this" topic. --Swift (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth I agree, it was one of the sections I originally complained about. Thenub314 (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Unusual methods can cover suicide by cop, suicide by committing capital crimes, suicide pacts, mass suicides.  --Panic (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Unusual methods can cover suicide by cop" Sorry, but you're speaking in some strange language again, Panic. As for suicide pacts and mass suicides, these are separate subjects. --Swift (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh suicide by cop ?!? (commuting -> committing) --Panic (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * :-D That's one phrase I'm proud not to have known! "Committing": Thanks, that explains that one a bit. It doesn't, however, explain why this merits a special section. --Swift (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Except for assisted suicided (that requires an participative collaboration) those other "methods" go beyond a personal decision.
 * I do think that this quality assurance (beyond the reasonable), unnecessary need for justification (since none else was editing) and overbearing criticism will be the death of the project.
 * Heck, I'm not committing to this book, I already have 3 other books going on. I was and I am just proving that the subject is worth keeping, valid under the WIW, with valid content and all can be extended to be a constructive resource of information, of course I understand Thenub314 point of view (if based on personal feeling, religion or moral). Even if I disagree with it. Being incarcerated is mental torture even at its best it causes always mental stress, that should be plain to anyone (this is why undomesticated animals in captivity often die, go mad or fail to reproduce). I'm not going to fight over the subject, I becoming strongly demotivated by all this friction, for instance the removal of the Dr. Death image/reference (that would be easy to be extended) in general it is annoying that people still go to such lengths, commenting on quality and subjective reasons without in reality doing any real work to improve the content...
 * I'm done for now here, I've made my point, posted my vote and opinion on the RfD and done my bit to improve the work so I'll move along. If people decide to contribute positively, I'm willing to collaborate since the subject merits being covered. --Panic (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have brought a negative tone to this discussion. My comments about prison systems are largely motivated by my personal experience with it. My remaining comments revolve around stem from what I feel a textbook is, and what I feel is academically relevant to this subject, which is in turn based on the courses I have taken. In way of an apology let me emphasize a few points which might have been overshadowed by my strong objections to the work. I meant what I said when I claimed that this book might be OK if it lived up to its own description of itself. I sincerely meant to give praise when I described the work you did as "excellent". I did not want to detract from this praise, and I fully believe any implicit OR was accidental. Let me further say that I think the subject is worthy of academic discussion, my objections where always based upon what was written instead of the subject itself. I have tried to contribute positively, even through my criticisms. For example, I do not spend time on the weekend reading forensic pathology books because I enjoy it, but because I see fact checking part of the editorial process. I have avoided removing information I find suspect as I am the person who initiated the RfD, and I saw it as polite not to take actions others might view as deteriorating the quality of the work while I simultaneously worked toward deleting it. I have thought seriously about what I might add, and I have been busy reading references about the subject. Thenub314 (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Though it is off topic, the argumentative side of me cannot help to point out that your arguments about the success of animals in captivity is deeply flawed. While many undomesticated animals do die, it is just as often due to a misunderstanding of the animal itself as opposed to the confines of its space. You fail to acknowledge that some breeding programs, say amongst higher apes are quite successful, while others are not (FYI: Because of the success of breeding programs for chimpanzees there is now an "over popluation" in the US. Relative of course to the available appropriate space for them.)  Other animals, such as elephants, will die without others of the species around and are notoriously difficult to breed.  As different species react differently, the real question in our case is about the human species.  I grant that there is undoubtedly a certain amount of stress involved with being incarcerated.  But I would stop far short of being put in jail or prison in the US a form of mental torture. Thenub314 (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Focus
I have spent a bit of time reading textbooks (or sections of textbooks) about suicide and I see a place where a decision needs to be made. The textbooks I have found fall under three major disciplines: Philosophy, Sociology, and Psychology. Depending on the discipline very different perspectives are taken, indeed many differ on the definition of suicide. I think there is a lot to be gained by choosing a discipline we hope this book would be written from. I think it would: My personal preference is the philosophical approach, because this is the one I know best. What do other people think. (Note to Panic: 3 sections, all located after your reply). Thenub314 (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * identify a set of references for a bibliography, as well as helping to improve our verifiability;
 * help make clear the scope of our book, making it clear whether sections on subjects like "Unusual methods" are relevant.

Suicide methods
There is a bunch of content I could bring here from the now-defunct SuicideWiki (which in turn got a lot of the content from the now-defunct ASH wiki). Specifically, I could add pages on: Amitriptyline cocktail, Carbon monoxide poisoning, Chloroquine cocktail, Cyanide poisoning, Darvon cocktail, Diphenhydramine, Exit (plastic) bag with sedatives, Fentanyl, Hanging, Helium, Hydrogen sulfide, Ligature strangulation, Methadone, Morphine and heroin, Nicotine, Non-suspension strangulation, Pentobarbital, Promethazine, Terminal dehydration, Wrist cutting, Suicide method characteristics, Availability, Peacefulness, Preparation and administration, Reliability, Safety to others, Speed of effect, Storage, Undetectability, Antiemetic regimen, Bad methods, Capsules, Cold water extraction, Drugs' shelf lives, Method contraindications, Obtaining drugs, Payment options, and Repackaging drugs in capsules.

This was attempted at Wikiversity and led to the pages being deleted. See wikiversity:Talk:Suicide. Can it be done at Wikibooks instead? Thanks. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It depends on the content, if factual bring it over, also police the revisions of the pages, due to the sensitivity of the subject and social taboo regarding death in general people try to avoid the subject and hide it as much as possible as not to face it. Or having facing it and dealt with it, became traumatized by events an unable to go beyond their own feelings on the subject. PS: There has been some deletions here especially on a section regarding Dr. Kevorkian that I haven't had the time to see if reversion is doable... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 04:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll bring the content over and see what happens. I started with Suicide/Pentobarbital. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 05:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It will be a huge task to clean it all up, you could probably expedite it by first importing the wikified text and then replace it with a dewikified version (content will be lost but it all depends on the commitment you are putting on the work).
 * I have moved the page to the already existing subsection about toxics and did some minor edits to keep the headings correct. Note that as it was the subject seemed as a collection of articles in here they will be in a book format some some consideration is required to make it fit with the needs of a reader and self contained (the information required for the reader), not a priority but something that must be kept in mind. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Does a pentobarbital overdose count as toxification? It's not really poisoning yourself. More like putting yourself to sleep (in the veterinary sense). Also, do we want the methods to be subpages of Suicide/ or Suicide/Suicide methods/ ? Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 00:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No one dies from sleep, right ? Overdose is the killer the toxicity of it to the organism, that suppresses life maintaining functions...
 * The location should depend on the size of content that one would include to make Suicide/Suicide methods viable as a subsection in itself (that a reader would need to navigate into).
 * PS: If you see the word "exit" used in the context of suicide in the pages you are importing I would appreciate that you change it to suicide. One could create a section about the subject but "exit" has implications that shouldn't be included in the present context of the work (exit to where, exit from where, exit implies that something passes, a beyond the threshold concept that is more in the field of religion). In a more metaphysical consideration one could even say that "exit" requires presence and if a presence exist no one would require or consider an "exit".  --Panic (discuss • contribs) 00:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When I think of poisoning, I think of a violently gruesome death like Michael Marin's, as opposed to just drifting off to sleep. Maybe that's just my personal aesthetics, though. "Exit" maybe means "exit life," "exit consciousness (permanently)"? Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 00:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again the word is unnecessary and creates the need to clarify other topics that should be beyond the topic at hand. What is life ? What is to be living ? Would a "living" person ever consider "exiting" ?!? Does "consciousness" end after death ? I have my on answers to those questions (I'm a pantheist) but I respect that others may have different ones as nothing on those subjects is really certain and falls into the field of faith and self understanding. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone wrote at Suicide Methods Hideout, "Pentobarbital would be a central nervous system depressant, so i don't think it would be considered a death by toxification. The h2s method might count as toxification, though i'm not certain. Other than that i can think of poisons and extremely slow death by being an avid smoker." Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a toxic dosage, you can also die by drinking too much water, its the dosage that becomes toxic as the organism will not be able to process it. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing the suicide methods section
I don't see value of this section, now or in the future. A book discussing suicide (from any of the perspectives mentioned by thenub314 above) may be worth having around; a how-to manual is not. There's a reason those other wikis became defunct; I don't think we should preserve that material here. In addition to the obvious health and safety concerns, quality and reliability are unlikely to ever be high. For instance, the current material is random and not well researched, long after the book was created. Sj (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * While you may not see a value in it (debatable) you present no just validation for any content removal. We avoid deleting stubs on Wikibooks (meaning that quality is a transient feature here and no project ultimately has a deadline or a "perfect state"). In any case in general we consider deletions as non contributive and we reserve them only for material that has no place here or is supplanted by better contributions. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, information on painless, simple and guaranteed suicide methods is precisely the kind of material that should be included in this book. According to many opinion polls, large majorities of people would prefer euthanasia to a prolonged and agonizing death from an incurable terminal illness such as cancer, but unfortunately assisting euthanasia is illegal in many countries in spite of popular opinion, due to powerful religious lobbies. So, unassisted suicide is the only option for the terminally ill cancer sufferers; a doctor or family member who assisted them would be liable to be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter.

Sidebar
What do you think of the Template:Suicide methods sidebar? I thought it made navigation pretty easy. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 03:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I dislike navebars templates by default, they are hard to maintain, hinder new users and not very helpful considering that the software already creates navigational links if the structure of the pages is "correct". I don't object but I will not help maintain them. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Subpages
There are a lot of subpages that need to be linked to: Special:PrefixIndex/Suicide Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 01:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you should leave that to the end stage, if I recall it is done by the template. You can add them if you remember but as you will be moving pages and content it may not be urgent.  --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)