Talk:Suicide

Scope of Learning Project
There is concern among the community, both pro and con, for the level of detail that will be included in this learning project. Specifically, the concern relates to whether or not this learning project should describe in specific detail how to commit suicide, or whether the specific details should be left out and left to other websites to provide. I'm not linking to any previous conversations or actions related to this discussion, as I have heard from users in several different ways, both on and off wiki. Instead, it is better to have this discussion here where everyone is able to participate collectively and determine the level of community acceptance for specifics on this topic.

Please sign your contributions using ~

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Abd
I do not consider these arguments conclusive, for reasons I give below. My conclusion, though, is as below. This detail cannot be included without ethical guidelines in place, and ethical guidelines might prohibit it. The goal of communication and sharing and learning can be supported without providing method detail. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Academic freedom. The research is a learning experience.
 * The information is available elsewhere, even linked from Wikipedia.
 * Sharing of information among people who are suicidal is known to reduce suicide rates among them. So while some may use the information, these people may have committed suicide anyway, and there are more people who, by sharing information and experience with others with similar thinking, who will pull back from suicide, because that sharing gives their lives meaning. They care about each other.
 * Information wants to be free.

Leucosticte
There is a lot of information in resources like ASH, the Peaceful Pill Handbook, etc. that needs to be consolidated and placed in a free resource that can be edited by anyone. Wikibooks is another viable alternative, but Wikiversity could be a better venue because there are a lot of differing opinions about suicide methods (e.g. there's a perpetual debate about the pros and cons of various antiemetics) and the subpages provide a good way to voice alternative views.

If people are worried that someone will use the information for illegal purposes, I would counter-argue, (1) suicide is legal in a lot of jurisdictions, so anyone in the world can legally kill themselves by travelling to one of those jurisdictions first; and (2) suicide methods information can be used for other purposes besides suicide, such as knowing how to detect when someone is preparing for suicide, or knowing what kinds of execution protocols would be most humane (e.g. pentobarbital has been used in both suicide and executions). The archives of w:Talk:Suicide methods provide a lot of the argumentation that has gone on about whether Wikimedia should host suicide methods information that might give people ideas they would put into practice. The outcome was that Wikipedia decided to host that content. What is proposed here is merely that more detail be gone into. We already have disclaimers that, this being an open wiki, readers need to apply a principle of caveat lector rather than blindly doing everything that is advocated or described on the site without exercising their own critical thinking faculties. The responsibility to prevent harm is the readers', who will be taking the actions; not the writers' who are merely providing information and opinions.

Safety to others is another concern. Some people will, for instance, kill themselves by carbon monoxide poisononing and neglect to leave any signs warning emergency personnel of the danger. There can be benefits to informing people of these considerations. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wrote a response to this, but it was lost when there were blocks flying about, irritating me enough that I wanted to kill myself go to meta and whine about report what was happening. Whew! Nice and quiet now, I think. Now where were we? I'll think about it.


 * Ah, it as something like: start the resource by studying just what you have described above.


 * What are the arguments pro and con of providing suicide information? I mean, not your personal opinion and argument, though you can include lower-level essays that are indeed your opinion, attributed to you. On the higher levels, I mean covering these arguments, as in an academic study, with sources. It could be a "task" of the resource to collect evidence and opinion on the topic, neutrally, overall, and you can be opinionated if you acknowledge judgements as being your personal opinion and don't dominate the resource by making your personal opinions more prominent than what is neutral.


 * This would then be creating evidence that could later be used by the community to set ethical guidelines based on more than "I like" and "I don't like."


 * Cover the Wikipedia process, what has actually been decided there, with links. Not judgment of it as right or wrong or what it means for us, but what actually happened?


 * Cover the Wikipedia resources, review them. Keep non-neutral opinion separate, make sure that opinion is signed or attributed.


 * Welcome participation of users who disagree with you. The resource will become deeper if you can manage this, and your own knowledge will grow. I do know that you like to argue, but be careful to create discussion that actually lead somewhere. Find arguments to support the other side! Etc. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of, first bring in the mainspace suicide methods content from SuicideWiki. Starting with undeletion of Suicide/Suicide methods/Pentobarbital and its transcluded templates. Adding what's already been written, and that has a compatible license, is a pretty non-labor-intensive beginning.


 * I notice that Suicide methods contains no disclaimers or suicide prevention information, other than a link at the bottom to the suicide prevention article. There's not even a link to suicide prevention resources on the talk page. In contrast, w:Talk:MediaWiki tells you how to find the MediaWiki FAQ if you're looking for info on installing or using MediaWiki. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Very simple, Leucosticte. Reasons are cheap. I'm just one user, but I'm taking a stand. No. Not now. You could go to WV:RFD and request undeletion. There is no danger in discussing the page, and you have the right. The page content can be safely outlined, the deletion reason can be addressed there independently of the actual content. A decision can be made there for deletion. (Ordinarily, a speedy deleted page would be undeleted for review, but when the page is deleted for possible hazard, the custodian may decide not to undelete without community approval. Not having the actual page visible may reduce hysteria and could make an undeletion decision more likely. If you get an undeletion decision there, then there might still be an issue of how the page is presented and framed. That could be resolved, and then similar SuicideWiki content could be imported.
 * My describing the procedure is not recommending that you do this, and, at this point, it could backfire. I.e., a decision there to keep deleted could make it more difficult to later move in the direction of including the information. Basically, set up the possible framing first, and an overall resource that is considered adequately safe, and then you can go for what you believe will be truly helpful for people. I get what you are standing for, I read what you link to and get tears in my eyes. Go for it, Leucosticte. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be better if you and/or Dave were to do it, since you were the ones involved in the original deletion. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My choice/stand/opinion is that the deleted material does not belong on Wikiversity at this time. You have put it on Wikibooks, which has already considered some of these issues and is electing to allow the material. We may -- and indeed should -- link to Wikibooks. The resource here may be developed considering balance and the ethical arguments, and would link to that material in that context. I am not going to go to RFD over this. Dave is his own person. The deleted templates are details, the core issue here is the resource on Suicide/Suicide methods/Pentobarbital (and then similar pages from SuicideWiki). I requested speedy deletion on ethical grounds, i.e., on an argument that such material must follow ethical guidelines, which have not yet been prepared, so it's premature. Dave agreed and deleted (though he gave a somewhat different reason).


 * Procedurally, you could request undeletion from him. Normally speedy deletion is reversible on request. However, under some conditions, and this is one of them, that may not be advisable. Still, it is not disruptive for you to ask him to undelete. Nor would it be disruptive for you to file an RFD requesting undeletion. However, I'm not going to file one because the discussion could be disruptive.


 * We must allow that level of disruption. Otherwise, the administration of Wikiversity becomes purely oligarchical and oppressive.


 * If you file the RFD, how you argue in it could be disruptive. You have presented some sound arguments on this page. You have also tossed in dicta that I, for one, saw as offensive. This is your old pattern, you take a minority position that is based on knowledge, and you often have more knowledge than those with whom you debate. Then you toss in additional arguments that offend people, causing them to respond "irrationally." I.e., humanly. Then you believe you have "won the argument." No, actually, the opposite.


 * That is, if the goal of argument is to engage with people, and to move and inspire them toward realizations that you have previously discovered for yourself, your style of argument causes you to fail to reach this goal.


 * Rather, you seem to have a goal of "winning" in your own eyes. This, then, leads you to increasing isolation from others, and collective intelligence is far deeper and stronger and wiser and more informed than individual intelligence, and I say that as one with measured IQ in the 99.9th percentile. When I am unable to connect with others, I become relatively stupid. Penny-wise and pound-foolish.


 * Back to the point here, you have work you may do on Wikiversity, leading toward the goals you claim to support. As before, you seem to be willing to sacrifice those goals in favor of "being right" or, probably more to the point, "avoiding domination." You have the training to know what I'm talking about.


 * So use it or lose it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, so I don't like to apply archive templates, or put "resolved" check marks. But I think this issue is pretty much resolved. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Abd
We would not allow, here, a page that gives detail on how to perform brain surgery, not without having a review process in place and addressing the ethical guidelines needed. Safety trumps academic freedom. However, academic freedom is important, so, providing that ethical considerations are addressed, there is no specific limit. Because safety trumps freedom, i.e., people when they feel they are unsafe or others are unsafe, may be willing to act even outside the law, for individual or collective survival, ignoring safety concerns is a formula for major disruption. Wikiversity can and will support academic freedom within ethical guidelines, so this is not a specific restriction. Hazardous content -- content that can cause harm -- should be approached on Wikiversity with high caution. With freedom comes responsibility. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Dave Braunschweig
Regardless of the outcome of the discussion, I would like to see this project open with a significant section and subpages dedicated to suicide prevention, with a list of suicide prevention resources, perhaps by country. Someone researching suicide should first be presented options for alternatives. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Great idea, certainly that can be done. I've done suicide prevention training, by the way. Only one problem with the suggestion, "unfunded mandate." User may elect to cover something else first. I would assume that we would start with links to Wikipedia, which has apparently long considered the ethical issues. Not that we are obligated to accept their decisions. Still, we have an operating assumption here that Wikipedia is neutral. So, creating some resource that might be controversial, I'll start with liking to the relevant Wikipedia resources, which establishes a background of presumed neutrality. Some times I know that the Wikipedia resource is not, in fact, neutral, but will start there, and subpages might go into the alleged problems.
 * Academically, we are "neutral." If a resource is biased on some way, though, we restore neutrality by balancing, and the general wiki responsibility is on those who think a resource is biased on one direction, to balance it in the other, by adding, not deleting, unless the bias is blatant (and then I will generally move it to a talk page). So what actually goes into the page will still be up to the users who edit it. We will not allow the resource to become an advocacy piece, and the top level will be rigorously neutral on that, which means "full consensus," as long as users are reasonably collaborative, which, my experience, most will be, even if they have strong opinions.
 * If Leucosticte works on this resource, I'll watch it and support him in avoiding problems. He actually has a lot of knowledge of many aspects of the issue, has known suicidal people and has interacted with them, etc. It's up to him what he wants to reveal of his personal history, and personal history testimony is something that can allow here, as long as it is not unnecessarily disruptive. If I choose to tell stories and anecdotes from my own experience, the same. In proper place. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Suicide prevention is a pretty broad topic, since it potentially encompasses everything that is involved in living a happy life. Even if we were to have a resource on, say, overcoming depression, it would not, by itself, address all the potential root causes of depression, such as social phobias, personality disorders, emotionally unintelligent relationships, etc. Assuring someone "There are resources for solving your problems" may get them to back down from their imminent suicide plans the first time around, but if they discover those resources aren't actually available, then they may not believe it the second time.


 * Also, there are some people who have reached a point at which getting suicide prevention information isn't the most urgent concern. For example, Angelique Flowers, who "spent her final weeks searching for information about euthanasia and a dose of the lethal drug Nembutal. Her final hours were robbed of the dignity she had wanted as she died vomiting the content of her bowels."


 * Wherever people post suicide methods information, do-gooders tend to show up fairly quickly to post suicide prevention information. So it's an "if you build it, they will come" situation.


 * I know a person who made several suicide attempts via hanging, pills, etc. They believe that they caused some damage to their body with the pills. When they finally obtained a reliable and peaceful suicide method, so that it would be a matter of either using or not using it (as opposed to possibly trying and failing), they opted not to make any further suicide attempts while that method was available. Arguably, this is a better outcome than what would have happened if they had remained ignorant of it.


 * Where people search for information on suicide methods, they often find people who can relate to the problems that make them want to kill themselves. That is part of the function of groups like alt.suicide.holiday. Those who can't relate are more often to respond with the Western dismissal (i.e. "Go see a shrink, or call 911"). Unfortunately, shrinks can be expensive and take weeks to get an appointment with, and a 911 call can be pretty expensive too, and lead to deprivation of liberty. In short, I'm not sure that the assumption some people make, that more suicide methods information leads to more harm from preventable suicides and suicide attempts, is valid. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Consider all the time spent arguing here, when conditions have not been set up to gain the result you might be supporting, as postponing work on the actual resource. Specific method information is not going to be allowed here without prior conditions being in place. Yeah, arrogant I am, it might have something to do with being 70 years old, I don't have so much time to waste. If you disagree, feel free to waste your time with argument that actually belongs in the resource, not here! This is a great topic to study!
 * Simply proceed with caution. I'd say that the arguments you have given here could easily be in the resource, they are not handing a gun to a child, for example. They are embarking on the kind of study and discussion that society needs in many areas, some of which became your Favorite Topics, partly because you sense that. Leucosticte, you are being handed the opportunity to actually accomplish what you have long wanted, and, surprise, it requires some discipline on your part. You are being expected -- and allowed -- to be a responsible adult. About time, don't you think? I'm standing for your future, and I think you know that. --Abd (discuss • contribs)

Marshallsumter
This is a hard topic! The US Marine Corps has, or had, a manual and training on how to successfully commit suicide. This is no soft soap approach. But, it should be included in any resource on the topic of suicide. As many points of view as possible should be presented and where possible supported by citations and references. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with Sidelight12 or not but everyone should be free to contribute. Dr. Jack Kavorkian (sp?) was a strong advocate of euthanasia so that would be an additional source. Another side of suicide is the cleanup. Many of these techniques leave quite a mess for family, friends, or hospital personnel to take care of. Then, there is the emotional trauma on family, friends, and sometimes children who happen to find the body. There is also the medical loss of a patient that may be closer to being remedied than realized. I've only touched on a few issues. I spent an entire evening talking with a physicist until I was hoarse who wanted to commit suicide because he was being drafted to serve in Viet Nam. He eventually reacquired his 2S status and remained in school. Another friend successfully faked his own suicide to get classified 1Y instead of always being hounded about his draft classification during the Nam decade. It devastated his parents until he was resuscitated at the hospital as he had planned. I believe a balanced resource or two here at Wikiversity can serve the common and greater good. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Starting point
I propose, as a starting point, bringing in the mainspace suicide methods content from the now-defunct SuicideWiki. That would include 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. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 20:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That approach has already failed once. I'd recommend trying a different approach.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As Abd pointed out, requiring a different approach is an unfunded mandate. This approach is the quickest and easiest way to add a significant amount of high-quality, informative content to this resource. I will see what they have to say about it over at Wikibooks. Thanks, Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks has a book on Suicide, and it already had some suicide method information; that book has survived two deletion attempts. Leucosticte asked there, and has cooperation with at least one high-contribution-count Wikibooks user. We can develop educational material here through a different kind of process, and we can link to sister wiki resources, not just to Wikipedia.
 * The RFDs on Wikibooks did not thoroughly address the ethical issues, they were focused on arguments about scope and particular content issues. On Wikipedia, I see 9 deletion nominations of Suicide methods. The last five were Speedy Keep. A major argument was that there was no policy allowing deletion. That is a clue that ethical concerns were not being addressed; this can generally be true on Wikipedia. It's a formula for disruption. So the last full discussion was in 2007. One of the votes there was
 * Strong delete. The content of this article constitutes a threat to human life, and its presence is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Newyorkbrad 16:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That was before Newyorkbrad was an arbitrator, as I recall. This is the ethical argument. It is countered most commonly by the "Wikipedia is not censored" argument. What I am not seeing is any effort include information or links to information and address ethical concerns; my sense is that this is because Wikipedia never developed any way to set up and apply ethical standards that are not just an erratic and unreliable free-for-all.
 * With another area of conflict between "not censored" and ethics, "child protection," largely a euphemism for prohibiting "pedophilia advocacy," Wikipedia punted. CP issues are to be addressed privately, off-wiki, and users can be blocked for making accusations.
 * We cannot guarantee enforcement of ethical guidelines any more than Wikipedia can. However, we can, at least, create clear guidelines. If not, my own ethical standards suggest not going ahead with the resource anyway. So that is what I stood for here, and I'm happy with that. Something else may happen on Wikibooks, but that is not our problem.
 * If we develop ethical standards, it is possible other wikis will pick up on them.
 * I am not prejudging those standards. Leucosticte made some cogent arguments for allowing full, detailed, how-to information. There are obvious arguments in the other direction.
 * I will simply raise one consideration, of mine, as a parent. If I depend on the ignorance of my children for their survival, their survival is unstable. I will agree with Leucosticte that the availability of suicide information can, under some circumstances at least, be life-saving, as counter-intuitive as that might be. I've heard many stories from people who had been suicidal. I do suggest that our resource study the literature instead of just making up what we want to believe. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

See also wikibooks:User:Leucosticte/Frequently_Asked_Questions. I think a lot of people spin their wheels thinking "I want to die" and it's only when a peaceful and reliable method becomes immediately available that they get out of that rut. Usually, it's by admitting that they're not going to do it. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that I have known people where it is possible that the availability of a method kept them alive. Yet it is also at least reasonable that the unavailability of a method might keep some people alive. Given this, the ethical question is the balance. Further, "keeping alive as long as possible" is not the ultimate goal of life. There are other goals that can outshine that one. It is not necessarily a simple question. The "lot of people" you mention, it is possible, were not going to kill themselves either way. So perhaps their life improved by having the method available, but could it not also have improved by other means, perhaps not so dangerous?
 * I've read one of the Wikibooks pages, expanded with material that you wanted to add here, and I'm personally very uncomfortable reading it. This material is definitely written in a "how-to" style, "you will want to ...." The language is definitely not neutral.
 * In the first RFD on Wikibooks, it is make plain that as a how-to guide, the book would be deleted. That position seems to have been lost in the second RFD. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the less reliable the most reliable suicide method available to a person is, the more likely they are to try it. I know someone who took "nine or ten Xan*x, 15 Seroquel, a lot of gin, twenty or around that aspirin or Tylenol or something, forty or something OTC sleeping pills and sixty or something benadryl over the course of 24-48 hours" in a failed suicide attempt. When they had pentobarbital available, they didn't touch it. If we make it harder for those who can't make good suicide decisions to implement those decisions, then we hinder natural selection, do we not? Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 00:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is going downhill fast. That last is old argument, in an old style. I'm dropping this. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my arguments were starting to become so irrefutable that there really was no response that wouldn't have been obviously fallacious. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 01:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)