Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost

by Guest Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:12 pm

First topic message reminder :

It is hoped a net made of stainless steel cable extending below and from the side of the span will save hundreds of lives.

Officials say they have funds to build a suicide-prevention net at San Francisco Bay's Golden Gate Bridge where two jump to their deaths each month.

The bridge's board of directors will vote on Friday on the plan, which has been debated since the 1950s.

One of the obstacles - the price tag - fell away on Monday as officials announced they had $76m (£45m) for the project.

Most of the new money comes from federal transport programmes, while the rest will be paid out of the bridge's own reserves and state mental health funding.

The bridge district's plan calls for a net made of stainless steel cable extending 20ft below and 20ft from the side of the span.

Anyone who jumps from the span might be injured but would probably survive the fall, say officials.

"For whatever reason, suicidal people don't want to hurt themselves," Dennis Mulligan, the bridge district's general manager, told KTVU-TV.

"At other locations where nets have been up no individual has jumped into the net."

More than 1,400 people have leapt to their deaths from the 4,200-ft suspension bridge since it opened in 1937.

Every year, scores of people contemplating suicide are coaxed not to jump from the span.

On average, there are two suicides a month at the structure.

The Bridge Rail Foundation, which tracks fatalities on the span, said 46 people committed suicide there last year.

Backers of the suicide net were boosted in 2012 when President Barack Obama signed a transportation bill allowing federal funds to flow to the project.

http://news.sky.com/story/1288528/golden-gate-bridge-suicide-net-plan-gets-boost

Good idea, if people want to kill themselves they don't want to do something that will hurt them but not kill them, so it sounds logical.

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:07 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:The author of the article:

JOHN M. GROHOL, PSY.D.

You're right, Didge. You posted that in between my last post and I've read up on him now. His qualifications are impeccable and I should never have questioned his research.

He is actually an active campaigner and a supporter to have the suicide prevention system installed on the Golden Gate Bridge and has been calling for it for years and complaining about the delay in it happening.

You can read what he says here...

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2006/10/22/should-bridges-be-suicideproof/

Game over.

Thanks for the link. John Grohol sounds like he really knows his stuff, so well done to Didge for highlighting him as an authority is these matters.

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:10 am

No worries Lovedust, are you actually going to answer my points?

For you as well:

As seen making excuses not to counter my points on these flaws, let alone these nets are just deterrents, there is no evidence to suggest they reduce suicides overall, when most of these studies fail to take into account where levels rise and fall, levels of the rise and fall in depression, bullying, poverty etc, hence why their conclusions are utterly flawed

by Irn Bru Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:16 am

Didge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

No its you running away again, you stated there is flaws, I have pointed out flaws and questions on these flaws which you now want to duck out of answering, it shows your desperation.
So you are doing what you always do being a complete copout, that is the sassy gang for you!

Try again

No Didge, you said goodnight about 10 minutes ago but you're still here but don't let me keep you out of your bed.

He said there are flaws and I accept that. And you were so keen to give me information about all his qualifications and that he is an expert in his field of work and I accept that as well just as I accept his qualifications to give his views that the suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge is the right thing to do.

End of line for you Didge, I'm afraid. It's over, it's the end.

I stayed on because it got interesting so now you look for more excuse to avoid answering and his is not the only one I have shown that shows flaws and bias in the studies, even the reports themselves elude to this, so you are just now making excuses not to counter my points, its rather pathetic on your part really

So no end of the line, you are as seen making excuses not to counter my points on these flaws, let alone these nets are just deterrents, there is no evidence to suggest they reduce suicides overall, when most of these studies fail to take into account where levels rise and fall, levels of the rise and fall in depression, bullying, poverty etc, hence why their conclusions are utterly flawed .

So try again

You really need to read what I'm saying Didge. I accept his studies that there are flaws in the research as being accurate just as I accept his studies and his view that the suicide barrier is the right thing to do.

He is well qualified after all just as you were saying.

This time it really is goodnight. Get a good nights sleep and reflect on what we have been discussing. It's been very enlightening and it's thanks to you that we have someone at last that we can depend on to set the record straight.

Night Didge.

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:20 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

I stayed on because it got interesting so now you look for more excuse to avoid answering and his is not the only one I have shown that shows flaws and bias in the studies, even the reports themselves elude to this, so you are just now making excuses not to counter my points, its rather pathetic on your part really

So no end of the line, you are as seen making excuses not to counter my points on these flaws, let alone these nets are just deterrents, there is no evidence to suggest they reduce suicides overall, when most of these studies fail to take into account where levels rise and fall, levels of the rise and fall in depression, bullying, poverty etc, hence why their conclusions are utterly flawed .

So try again

You really need to read what I'm saying Didge. I accept his studies that there are flaws in the research as being accurate just as I accept his studies and his view that the suicide barrier is the right thing to do.

He is well qualified after all just as you were saying.

This time it really is goodnight. Get a good nights sleep and reflect on what we have been discussing. It's been very enlightening and it's thanks to you that we have someone at last that we can depend on to set the record straight.

Night Didge.

Again you avoids the points why such studies are flawed even more so in the last 45 years, suicides and attempts at suicides, have increased by 60%, how does that show deterrents are working?

Again you are just avoiding because these facts I am presenting are uncomfortable for you to answer, it shows why such studies are flawed and are not really looking at the root cause of problems, so in 45 years it has increased, not decreased overall, that is damning evidence.

Again he was just one of two views I showed that show such studies are flawed and now you hinge on him because he back suicide nets, that is desperation on your part when again even your reports you presented admit flaws and bias.
So again As seen making excuses not to counter my points on these flaws, let alone these nets are just deterrents, there is no evidence to suggest they reduce suicides overall, when most of these studies fail to take into account where levels rise and fall, levels of the rise and fall in depression, bullying, poverty etc, hence why their conclusions are utterly flawed

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:16 am

Didge wrote:No worries Lovedust, are you actually going to answer my points?

For you as well:

As seen making excuses not to counter my points on these flaws, let alone these nets are just deterrents, there is no evidence to suggest they reduce suicides overall, when most of these studies fail to take into account where levels rise and fall, levels of the rise and fall in depression, bullying, poverty etc, hence why their conclusions are utterly flawed

Didge: you complained that this thread is "going round in circles". We agree to disagree I haven't answered your points as I'm not prepared to go through the thread and repeat the answers you've already had. In respect of the specific point you raise above:-

1) You've already been told it's the expert opinion of the Executive Director of Suicide Prevention for San Francisco that a net will save lives given the "suicidal impulse is transient"
2) You've already been told that in the expert opinion of the Director of Psychiatry at St Francis Hospital, SF, that it's a "myth" "people will just go elsewhere" that needs to be "exploded"
3) You've already been told of the expert analysis of Kreitman, who in a 93 page study found that the 26% suicide rate drop in UK 1960-1971 was as the direct result of the detoxification of British gas during this period, and this is evidence that suicidal people don't necessarily go elsewhere
4) You've already been told of Seiden's 34 year study which found 94% of subjects alive 26 years later (as opposed to the 0% it would have been if people necessarily just went elsewhere, as you claim)
5) Contrary to your assertion the Seiden subjects largely lived long lives as the result of follow-up care rather than restriction of access to lethal means, you've already been told world suicide prevention experts conclude it is restriction of access to lethal means, along with gatekeepers and improving physician detection, that is one of the most important means of suicide prevention.

Do you understand this subject better than all these experts combined?

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:00 am

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:No worries Lovedust, are you actually going to answer my points?

For you as well:

As seen making excuses not to counter my points on these flaws, let alone these nets are just deterrents, there is no evidence to suggest they reduce suicides overall, when most of these studies fail to take into account where levels rise and fall, levels of the rise and fall in depression, bullying, poverty etc, hence why their conclusions are utterly flawed

Didge: you complained that this thread is "going round in circles". We agree to disagree I haven't answered your points as I'm not prepared to go through the thread and repeat the answers you've already had. In respect of the specific point you raise above:-

1) You've already been told it's the expert opinion of the Executive Director of Suicide Prevention for San Francisco that a net will save lives given the "suicidal impulse is transient"
Flawed, based upon speculation, nobody knows if it will save lives from suicide, as nobody can predict the future here, that is absurd, as seen we have already seen this to be a sham, where in Toronto, it did not act as a deterrent all. You failed to understand that are basing this of biased and flawed studies. which has already been explained
2) You've already been told that in the expert opinion of the Director of Psychiatry at St Francis Hospital, SF, that it's a "myth" "people will just go elsewhere" that needs to be "exploded"
WEll it is not a myth as seen in Toronto people did go elsewhere, in fact overall suicide rates did not decrease at all, another point you failed to answer or reply back to. In fact even in the report Irn produced which only looked at the jumping method and failed to see if there was any increases in other methods, showed a dramaitic increase in jumping elsewhere, thus clearly this point, shows it does not deter, because levels increased elsewhere, no matter how badly you will try to claim overall, where again many factors have not been taken into account
3) You've already been told of the expert analysis of Kreitman, who in a 93 page study found that the 26% suicide rate drop in UK 1960-1971 was as the direct result of the detoxification of British gas during this period, and this is evidence that suicidal people don't necessarily go elsewhere
Yes which admitted bias and admitted failings also, it look for positive outcomes, but failed to explain why from 1975 suicide rates started to increase and have continued to increase for men, thus they have badly made a link because they have seen a decrease yet do not factor in the increase. Let alone poverty levels, economy, relations levels, bullying levels, depression levels, without many of these points they are second guessing
4) You've already been told of Seiden's 34 year study which found 94% of subjects alive 26 years later (as opposed to the 0% it would have been if people necessarily just went elsewhere, as you claim)
That is the worst claim of them all, because it was human intervention in the main which has made any of these stats, possible, where they coached people to come down, where after they then directed them to extra help, not net is going to do that, it will just ,make someone go else where, and no even worse no patrol to intervene. Again this was the worst flawed claim of them all to make out, nets are in comparison to humans in patrols, this was another area of posts you failed to respond to or answer my points, you just did as you always do and ignore them and think I will not notice, that is not only rude but condescending towards me, hence why you are taking the piss, I do not expect that from you, others I do not care, but clearly you are just the same ,
5) Contrary to your assertion the Seiden subjects largely lived long lives as the result of follow-up care rather than restriction of access to lethal means, you've already been told world suicide prevention experts conclude it is restriction of access to lethal means, along with gatekeepers and improving physician detection, that is one of the most important means of suicide prevention.
You already been told many flaws, you are just convinced in biased flawed reports, more foll you really

Do you understand this subject better than all these experts combined?

Sorry I have lost respect for someone who claims to have answered my points when they have avoided then at all costs, I have answered your 20 times over yet you and some others fail to explain the many flaws I have laid out. I seems you have utterly no interest in debating the topic so what is the point, when you refuse to take on many factors. In fact all you are doing is going off what some of these reports say without understand the reports themselves
Now unless you are not going to address my points, I suggest you stop wasting my time, because I am not bored with you avoided my points all the time, so best you decide whether you wish to engage in this debate.

Good luck

by Tommy Monk Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:58 am

Sassy, I never said this money would be taken out of anywhere, I suggested it might be better used by adding it to other services.

I still maintain that while this net might reduce suicides at this particular location, any determined person one who would have jumped there will just jump elsewhere instead.

Or find another method.

You don't stop people hanging themselves by banning rope.....

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Sassy, I never said this money would be taken out of anywhere, I suggested it might be better used by adding it to other services.

I still maintain that while this net might reduce suicides at this particular location, any determined person one who would have jumped there will just jump elsewhere instead.

Or find another method.

You don't stop people hanging themselves by banning rope.....

As I said Tommy if you bothered to read, studies by experts all over the world have concluded exactly the opposite, that wanting to kill yourself is a transitory feeling and if the method you have chosen can't be done, you don't go on to do it somewhere else in most cases..

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:46 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Didge: you complained that this thread is "going round in circles". We agree to disagree I haven't answered your points as I'm not prepared to go through the thread and repeat the answers you've already had. In respect of the specific point you raise above:-

1) You've already been told it's the expert opinion of the Executive Director of Suicide Prevention for San Francisco that a net will save lives given the "suicidal impulse is transient"
Flawed, based upon speculation, nobody knows if it will save lives from suicide, as nobody can predict the future here, that is absurd, as seen we have already seen this to be a sham, where in Toronto, it did not act as a deterrent all. You failed to understand that are basing this of biased and flawed studies. which has already been explained
2) You've already been told that in the expert opinion of the Director of Psychiatry at St Francis Hospital, SF, that it's a "myth" "people will just go elsewhere" that needs to be "exploded"
WEll it is not a myth as seen in Toronto people did go elsewhere, in fact overall suicide rates did not decrease at all, another point you failed to answer or reply back to. In fact even in the report Irn produced which only looked at the jumping method and failed to see if there was any increases in other methods, showed a dramaitic increase in jumping elsewhere, thus clearly this point, shows it does not deter, because levels increased elsewhere, no matter how badly you will try to claim overall, where again many factors have not been taken into account
3) You've already been told of the expert analysis of Kreitman, who in a 93 page study found that the 26% suicide rate drop in UK 1960-1971 was as the direct result of the detoxification of British gas during this period, and this is evidence that suicidal people don't necessarily go elsewhere
Yes which admitted bias and admitted failings also, it look for positive outcomes, but failed to explain why from 1975 suicide rates started to increase and have continued to increase for men, thus they have badly made a link because they have seen a decrease yet do not factor in the increase. Let alone poverty levels, economy, relations levels, bullying levels, depression levels, without many of these points they are second guessing
4) You've already been told of Seiden's 34 year study which found 94% of subjects alive 26 years later (as opposed to the 0% it would have been if people necessarily just went elsewhere, as you claim)
That is the worst claim of them all, because it was human intervention in the main which has made any of these stats, possible, where they coached people to come down, where after they then directed them to extra help, not net is going to do that, it will just ,make someone go else where, and no even worse no patrol to intervene. Again this was the worst flawed claim of them all to make out, nets are in comparison to humans in patrols, this was another area of posts you failed to respond to or answer my points, you just did as you always do and ignore them and think I will not notice, that is not only rude but condescending towards me, hence why you are taking the piss, I do not expect that from you, others I do not care, but clearly you are just the same ,
5) Contrary to your assertion the Seiden subjects largely lived long lives as the result of follow-up care rather than restriction of access to lethal means, you've already been told world suicide prevention experts conclude it is restriction of access to lethal means, along with gatekeepers and improving physician detection, that is one of the most important means of suicide prevention.
You already been told many flaws, you are just convinced in biased flawed reports, more foll you really

Do you understand this subject better than all these experts combined?

Sorry I have lost respect for someone who claims to have answered my points when they have avoided then at all costs, I have answered your 20 times over yet you and some others fail to explain the many flaws I have laid out. I seems you have utterly no interest in debating the topic so what is the point, when you refuse to take on many factors. In fact all you are doing is going off what some of these reports say without understand the reports themselves
Now unless you are not going to address my points, I suggest you stop wasting my time, because I am not bored with you avoided my points all the time, so best you decide whether you wish to engage in this debate.

Good luck

Didge, you are obviously having trouble reading, as Lovey answered all your points.

You then tried to claim that your 'expert of experts' said all the studies from other world experts were flawed and he was the only one that was right.

Irn then agreed with you that maybe he was the 'best' expert, and he had been campaigning for this net for years and and had said it would save a lot of lives. Even after that you tried to argue again.

I think we should put you in charge of world mental health as you are obviously the only person who knows anything, funny you are not in that line of business. It's either that or:

Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost - Page 16 Delusional-1

Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost - Page 16 Delusional-1

and you are:

Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost - Page 16 U-mad-bro

by Tommy Monk Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:44 pm

Sassy wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Sassy, I never said this money would be taken out of anywhere, I suggested it might be better used by adding it to other services.
I still maintain that while this net might reduce suicides at this particular location, any determined person one who would have jumped there will just jump elsewhere instead.
Or find another method.
You don't stop people hanging themselves by banning rope.....
As I said Tommy if you bothered to read, studies by experts all over the world have concluded exactly the opposite, that wanting to kill yourself is a transitory feeling and if the method you have chosen can't be done, you don't go on to do it somewhere else in most cases..

As transient as I. Is, if someone wants to jump off something, they will know that the bridge is no good and just choose a different place instead.

Then if all talk buildings are met protected then they will attempt a different method.

Earlier intervention and wider support networks are needed.

Not just a net at one place.

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:56 pm

Sassy wrote:
Didge wrote:

Sorry I have lost respect for someone who claims to have answered my points when they have avoided then at all costs, I have answered your 20 times over yet you and some others fail to explain the many flaws I have laid out. I seems you have utterly no interest in debating the topic so what is the point, when you refuse to take on many factors. In fact all you are doing is going off what some of these reports say without understand the reports themselves
Now unless you are not going to address my points, I suggest you stop wasting my time, because I am not bored with you avoided my points all the time, so best you decide whether you wish to engage in this debate.

Good luck

Didge, you are obviously having trouble reading, as Lovey answered all your points.

You then tried to claim that your 'expert of experts' said all the studies from other world experts were flawed and he was the only one that was right.

Irn then agreed with you that maybe he was the 'best' expert, and he had been campaigning for this net for years and and had said it would save a lot of lives. Even after that you tried to argue again.

I think we should put you in charge of world mental health as you are obviously the only person who knows anything, funny you are not in that line of business. It's either that or:

and you are:

No she has not answered any of my points but just copied what some people have said and claimed, the worst being as you do people linking a decrease in suicide down to a method less accessible, which is not only absurd but flawed, when you fail to factor as stated many other points, I showed two sets of experts that show such failings and I showed from the reports themselves they admit such failings and bias.
Clearly you are clueless on methodology sassy and maybe you can explain to me how there is such a connection when suicide rates have continued to increase over the last 45 years by 60% The only way such deterrents would reduce suicides, is if you had them on everything, as stated so many times, it clearly shows on every study an increase elsewhere on jumpers new by to where the nets were installed, this you and other clearly fail to understand and go off an overall amount based on a short time period which fails to rule out all methods and the many factors I have stated already, hence why such claims by psychiatrists are flawed, all they do is seek to claim to find a connection ,when many other aspects many explain an overall decrease of how they fail to explain when it does increase again. It is based on a short time frame also and not contentious study

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:25 pm

Didge wrote:...John M. Grohol, Psy.D. is an expert in online psychology and behavior, researcher, author, and CEO & founder of the leading mental health and psychology network,Psych Central.com. Since receiving his doctorate in clinical psychology from Nova Southeastern University in 1995, Dr. Grohol has worked tirelessly as an online patient advocate and publisher of independent, objective mental health information designed to reduce the stigma associated with these concerns.

He founded Psych Central in 1995 as one of the first mental health and psychology sites that offered information about the symptoms and treatments of mental disorders, including interactive screening quizzes and self-help tools. It now is the home to over 170 support groups, over 200,000 members, and was recognized byTIME.com as one of the 50 Best Websites of 2008.

Dr. Grohol has also worked for a number of e-Health firms, including drkoop.com; the Internet's first online clinic, HelpHorizons.com; and Steve Case's Revolution Health, helping them with their own mental health centers and understanding the power of online self-help support groups.

As one of the pioneering leaders in psychology online, Dr. Grohol sits on the editorial board for the journal CyberPsychology, Social Networking & Behavior and is a founding member of the Society for Participatory Medicine. He is also the author ofThe Insider's Guide to Mental Health Resources Online (Guilford) and blogs regularly at e-Patients.net as well as on PsychCentral.com.
Show full bio

http://psychcentral.com/news/author/grohol

....

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t5448p700-golden-gate-bridge-suicide-net-plan-gets-boost-rebecca-black-autoplay-warning#122173

There's an interesting comment from John Grohol MD on this subject here:

How Does a Bridge Suicide Net Work?
By JOHN M. GROHOL, PSY.D.

As we noted a few days ago, the Golden Gate Bridge is finally getting a suicide barrier. However, it’s not so much a barrier as it is a net. A steel net, to be specific.

The net will be suspended from either side of the iconic span, and reach out about 20 feet. Out of the five barrier proposals considered, this is the only suicide barrier that will not interfere with tourists’ view from the bridge. It will also allow the 16 painters employed on the bridge to continue their current work routines (the other four barriers would’ve required additional effort and risk for the painters to do their work).

When people jump from the bridge into the net, it will hold them there, suspended some 740 feet over the entrance to the San Francisco Bay.

Denis Mulligan, the chief engineer of the bridge, recently explained to the San Francisco Chronicle how the net works — it envelops the suicide jumper, making it difficult, but not impossible, to get out:

“It wouldn’t be like a trampoline, that once you jump onto, it would be easy to jump off,” Mulligan said. But, he added, “If you’re very agile, very strong and focused, you may be able to climb out.”

The net will be angled and constructed in such a way as to make climbing out of it difficult. The 20 foot drop a person takes into the net will also likely be painful. The paper also described how the process would work in retrieving a person from the net:

During a rescue operation from the net, authorities would shut down a lane of traffic. A specialized vehicle, called a “snooper” truck, would be brought in. Outfitted with a mechanical arm similar to a cherry picker used by utility crews, two specially trained rescue workers would be lowered down to the net in a bucket to pull the person out.

A similar net was installed in Bern, Switzerland. According to the paper, “Researchers found that just the presence of the net stopped people from even trying to jump off the Munster Terrace, a medieval cathedral located in the old section of Bern, from which two or three people had been leaping to their deaths every year. They also found that the net did not shift suicides to other locations.”

Will it work on the Golden Gate Bridge? Prior research suggests that it will at least cut down on the number of successful attempts from the bridge.

After installation of suicide barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge in Bristol, England, researchers there found a significant decline in the number of successful suicides from the bridge. Importantly — and contrary to conventional wisdom — the researchers did not find an increase in jumps from other buildings or bridges in the area. In other words, people didn’t just go find another bridge to jump from.

A net is likely a less effective suicide barrier than a properly designed fence would be. It is hypothesized, however, that the net will work to take away the impulsiveness of the suicidal act. If you know ahead of time that the net is there, and will make it extremely painful and difficult (and in some cases, impossible) to actually complete the act, it’s likely most people will simply not bother trying.

Reference:

Bennewith, O., Nowers, M., & Gunnell, D. (2007). Effect of barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge, England, on local patterns of suicide: Implications for prevention. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(3), 266-267.

Steel net preferred for halting bridge jumpers, San Francisco Chronicle

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:29 pm

Thanks for that Lovedust, and I'm sure you won't be so despondent by the fact of Didge withdrawing his respect that you will find somewhere to jump off. After all, respect from someone that you yourself don't have respect for doesn't mean much, does it!!!!

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:33 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:...John M. Grohol, Psy.D. is an expert in online psychology and behavior, researcher, author, and CEO & founder of the leading mental health and psychology network,Psych Central.com. Since receiving his doctorate in clinical psychology from Nova Southeastern University in 1995, Dr. Grohol has worked tirelessly as an online patient advocate and publisher of independent, objective mental health information designed to reduce the stigma associated with these concerns.

He founded Psych Central in 1995 as one of the first mental health and psychology sites that offered information about the symptoms and treatments of mental disorders, including interactive screening quizzes and self-help tools. It now is the home to over 170 support groups, over 200,000 members, and was recognized byTIME.com as one of the 50 Best Websites of 2008.

Dr. Grohol has also worked for a number of e-Health firms, including drkoop.com; the Internet's first online clinic, HelpHorizons.com; and Steve Case's Revolution Health, helping them with their own mental health centers and understanding the power of online self-help support groups.

As one of the pioneering leaders in psychology online, Dr. Grohol sits on the editorial board for the journal CyberPsychology, Social Networking & Behavior and is a founding member of the Society for Participatory Medicine. He is also the author ofThe Insider's Guide to Mental Health Resources Online (Guilford) and blogs regularly at e-Patients.net as well as on PsychCentral.com.
Show full bio

http://psychcentral.com/news/author/grohol

....

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t5448p700-golden-gate-bridge-suicide-net-plan-gets-boost-rebecca-black-autoplay-warning#122173

There's an interesting comment from John Grohol MD on this subject here:

How Does a Bridge Suicide Net Work?
By JOHN M. GROHOL, PSY.D.

As we noted a few days ago, the Golden Gate Bridge is finally getting a suicide barrier. However, it’s not so much a barrier as it is a net. A steel net, to be specific.

The net will be suspended from either side of the iconic span, and reach out about 20 feet. Out of the five barrier proposals considered, this is the only suicide barrier that will not interfere with tourists’ view from the bridge. It will also allow the 16 painters employed on the bridge to continue their current work routines (the other four barriers would’ve required additional effort and risk for the painters to do their work).

When people jump from the bridge into the net, it will hold them there, suspended some 740 feet over the entrance to the San Francisco Bay.

Denis Mulligan, the chief engineer of the bridge, recently explained to the San Francisco Chronicle how the net works — it envelops the suicide jumper, making it difficult, but not impossible, to get out:

“It wouldn’t be like a trampoline, that once you jump onto, it would be easy to jump off,” Mulligan said. But, he added, “If you’re very agile, very strong and focused, you may be able to climb out.”

The net will be angled and constructed in such a way as to make climbing out of it difficult. The 20 foot drop a person takes into the net will also likely be painful. The paper also described how the process would work in retrieving a person from the net:

During a rescue operation from the net, authorities would shut down a lane of traffic. A specialized vehicle, called a “snooper” truck, would be brought in. Outfitted with a mechanical arm similar to a cherry picker used by utility crews, two specially trained rescue workers would be lowered down to the net in a bucket to pull the person out.

A similar net was installed in Bern, Switzerland. According to the paper, “Researchers found that just the presence of the net stopped people from even trying to jump off the Munster Terrace, a medieval cathedral located in the old section of Bern, from which two or three people had been leaping to their deaths every year. They also found that the net did not shift suicides to other locations.”

Will it work on the Golden Gate Bridge? Prior research suggests that it will at least cut down on the number of successful attempts from the bridge.

After installation of suicide barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge in Bristol, England, researchers there found a significant decline in the number of successful suicides from the bridge. Importantly — and contrary to conventional wisdom — the researchers did not find an increase in jumps from other buildings or bridges in the area. In other words, people didn’t just go find another bridge to jump from.

A net is likely a less effective suicide barrier than a properly designed fence would be. It is hypothesized, however, that the net will work to take away the impulsiveness of the suicidal act. If you know ahead of time that the net is there, and will make it extremely painful and difficult (and in some cases, impossible) to actually complete the act, it’s likely most people will simply not bother trying.

Reference:

Bennewith, O., Nowers, M., & Gunnell, D. (2007). Effect of barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge, England, on local patterns of suicide: Implications for prevention. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(3), 266-267.

Steel net preferred for halting bridge jumpers, San Francisco Chronicle

So again you fail to address my points, so there is no point debating with you on this topic, I have stated the flaws, where they are seeking to find a connection solely off when at times the numbers overall decrease, yet they even admit the jumpers increase elsewhere.
Again all you are doing is giving me others opinions and none of your own, if I am to debate these experts, then they can come and join the forum, I wish to debate your views and understandings on this which it is very evident you have little understanding on. Again nobody is doubting that the net will stop suicide attempts at the bridge it self or that it will also stop accidents, the point is being made on flawed claims this will decrease or change peoples minds on whether to commit suicide.
Again the hypothesis claimed by some experts is based on where they see a decrease over a set time periods, that is flawed, it is also flawed when it could be for other reasons the drop has occurred.
If these deterrents were so good, we would see a trend happening of a general decrease overall in suicides, this though is not the case. To me human intervention on all areas is the best course of action

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:42 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t5448p700-golden-gate-bridge-suicide-net-plan-gets-boost-rebecca-black-autoplay-warning#122173

There's an interesting comment from John Grohol MD on this subject here:

How Does a Bridge Suicide Net Work?
By JOHN M. GROHOL, PSY.D.

As we noted a few days ago, the Golden Gate Bridge is finally getting a suicide barrier. However, it’s not so much a barrier as it is a net. A steel net, to be specific.

The net will be suspended from either side of the iconic span, and reach out about 20 feet. Out of the five barrier proposals considered, this is the only suicide barrier that will not interfere with tourists’ view from the bridge. It will also allow the 16 painters employed on the bridge to continue their current work routines (the other four barriers would’ve required additional effort and risk for the painters to do their work).

When people jump from the bridge into the net, it will hold them there, suspended some 740 feet over the entrance to the San Francisco Bay.

Denis Mulligan, the chief engineer of the bridge, recently explained to the San Francisco Chronicle how the net works — it envelops the suicide jumper, making it difficult, but not impossible, to get out:

“It wouldn’t be like a trampoline, that once you jump onto, it would be easy to jump off,” Mulligan said. But, he added, “If you’re very agile, very strong and focused, you may be able to climb out.”

The net will be angled and constructed in such a way as to make climbing out of it difficult. The 20 foot drop a person takes into the net will also likely be painful. The paper also described how the process would work in retrieving a person from the net:

During a rescue operation from the net, authorities would shut down a lane of traffic. A specialized vehicle, called a “snooper” truck, would be brought in. Outfitted with a mechanical arm similar to a cherry picker used by utility crews, two specially trained rescue workers would be lowered down to the net in a bucket to pull the person out.

A similar net was installed in Bern, Switzerland. According to the paper, “Researchers found that just the presence of the net stopped people from even trying to jump off the Munster Terrace, a medieval cathedral located in the old section of Bern, from which two or three people had been leaping to their deaths every year. They also found that the net did not shift suicides to other locations.”

Will it work on the Golden Gate Bridge? Prior research suggests that it will at least cut down on the number of successful attempts from the bridge.

After installation of suicide barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge in Bristol, England, researchers there found a significant decline in the number of successful suicides from the bridge. Importantly — and contrary to conventional wisdom — the researchers did not find an increase in jumps from other buildings or bridges in the area. In other words, people didn’t just go find another bridge to jump from.

A net is likely a less effective suicide barrier than a properly designed fence would be. It is hypothesized, however, that the net will work to take away the impulsiveness of the suicidal act. If you know ahead of time that the net is there, and will make it extremely painful and difficult (and in some cases, impossible) to actually complete the act, it’s likely most people will simply not bother trying.

Reference:

Bennewith, O., Nowers, M., & Gunnell, D. (2007). Effect of barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge, England, on local patterns of suicide: Implications for prevention. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(3), 266-267.

Steel net preferred for halting bridge jumpers, San Francisco Chronicle

So again you fail to address my points, so there is no point debating with you on this topic, I have stated the flaws, where they are seeking to find a connection solely off when at times the numbers overall decrease, yet they even admit the jumpers increase elsewhere. Actually John Grohol MD, who you respect as an authority on bias in studies, has given his expert opinion that jumpers' numbers don't increase elsewhere. I highlighted and underlined the sections in which he does so in the article in brown.
Again all you are doing is giving me others opinions and none of your own, if I am to debate these experts, then they can come and join the forum,You've had my opinion countless times; I've also demonstrated it to be backed overwhelmingly by expert opinion. I wish to debate your views and understandings on this which it is very evident you have little understanding on. Then you deem world experts on suicide prevention to have "very little understanding on" this subject either, given my views are in accordance with their expert opinion.Again nobody is doubting that the net will stop suicide attempts at the bridge it self or that it will also stop accidents, the point is being made on flawed claims this will decrease or change peoples minds on whether to commit suicide. You reject the opinion of the world's top experts on this matter because you think they are making "flawed claims". Is this correct?
Again the hypothesis claimed by some experts is based on where they see a decrease over a set time periods, that is flawed, it is also flawed when it could be for other reasons the drop has occurred.
If these deterrents were so good, we would see a trend happening of a general decrease overall in suicides, this though is not the case. To me human intervention on all areas is the best course of action And to the world's top experts,who spent five days together reviewing 93 studies, physician education, restriction of access to lethal means and gatekeepers are the best courses of action.

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:53 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

So again you fail to address my points, so there is no point debating with you on this topic, I have stated the flaws, where they are seeking to find a connection solely off when at times the numbers overall decrease, yet they even admit the jumpers increase elsewhere. Actually John Grohol MD, who you respect as an authority on bias in studies, has given his expert opinion that jumpers' numbers don't increase elsewhere. I highlighted and underlined the sections in which he does so in the article in brown.
Again all you are doing is giving me others opinions and none of your own, if I am to debate these experts, then they can come and join the forum,You've had my opinion countless times; I've also demonstrated it to be backed overwhelmingly by expert opinion. I wish to debate your views and understandings on this which it is very evident you have little understanding on. Then you deem world experts on suicide prevention to have "very little understanding on" this subject either, given my views are in accordance with their expert opinion.Again nobody is doubting that the net will stop suicide attempts at the bridge it self or that it will also stop accidents, the point is being made on flawed claims this will decrease or change peoples minds on whether to commit suicide. You reject the opinion of the world's top experts on this matter because you think they are making "flawed claims". Is this correct?
Again the hypothesis claimed by some experts is based on where they see a decrease over a set time periods, that is flawed, it is also flawed when it could be for other reasons the drop has occurred.
If these deterrents were so good, we would see a trend happening of a general decrease overall in suicides, this though is not the case. To me human intervention on all areas is the best course of action

Where did I say I respected him, I used him to show that such studies are flawed which means his own views would be hypocritical.
Second, there is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:56 pm

Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost - Page 16 23_33_16

So you use him as evidence until he says the opposite to what you thought he said and then, all of a sudden, you don't respect him.

You should be on the stage as a comic, you'd make a fortune.

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:58 pm

Sassy wrote:https://2img.net/h/i330.photobucket.com/albums/l433/gunnersix76/smileys/23_33_16.gif

So you use him as evidence until he says the opposite to what you thought he said and then, all of a sudden, you don't respect him.

You should be on the stage as a comic, you'd make a fortune.

I clearly state he thus contradicts himself if he is to use studies as well, when he berates them as biased and flawed, what is wrong with that and he was just one of two examples, what you are doing is sticking desperately to a point and not answering the many flaws, because as seen you have no answer.

So same points go to you

I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:04 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Where did I say I respected him, I used him to show that such studies are flawed which means his own views would be hypocritical.
Second, there is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

Fine have it your way Didge.
World experts J. John Mann, MD; Alan Apter, MD; Jose Bertolote, MD; Annette Beautrais, PhD; Dianne Currier, PhD; Ann Haas, PhD; Ulrich Hegerl, MD; Jouko Lonnqvist, MD; Kevin Malone, MD; Andrej Marusic, MD, PhD; Lars Mehlum, MD; George Patton, MD; Michael Phillips, MD; Wolfgang Rutz, MD; Zoltan Rihmer, MD, PhD, DSc; Armin Schmidtke, MD, PhD; David Shaffer, MD; Morton Silverman, MD; Yoshitomo Takahashi, MD; Airi Varnik, MD; Danuta Wasserman, MD; Paul Yip, PhD; Herbert Hendin, MD together with institutions New York State Psychiatric Institute, Division of Neuroscience (Drs Mann and Currier) and Division of Child psychiatry (Dr Schaffer), Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York; Department of Psychiatry, Schneiders Childrens Medical Center of Israel (Dr Apter); Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (Dr Bertolote); Canterbury Suicide Project, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Christchurch, New Zealand (Dr Beautrais); American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, New York, NY (Drs Haas and Hendin); Department of Psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany (Dr Hegerl); Department of Mental Health and Alcohol Research, National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, Finland (Dr Lonnqvist); Department of Psychiatry & Mental Health Research, St Vincents University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland (Dr Malone); Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubjana, Slovenia (Dr Marusic); Suicide Research and Prevention Unit, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway (Dr Mehlum); Centre for Adolescent Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia (Dr Patton); Beijing Suicide Research and Prevention Center, Beijing, China (Dr Phillips); Division of Psychiatry, Unit for Social Psychiatry and Health Promotion, Academic University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden (Dr Rutz); National Institute for Psychiatry and Neurology, Budapest, Hungary (Dr Rihmer); Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (Dr Schmidtke); National Suicide Prevention Technical Resource Center, Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, Newton, Mass (Dr Silverman); Division of Behavior Sciences, National Defense Medical College Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan (Dr Takahashi); Estonian-Swedish Suicidology Institute, Center Behavior and Health Science, Tallinn, Estonia (Dr Varnik); Department of Public Health Sciences at Karolinska Institute, Swedish National Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention of Mental Ill-Health, Stockholm, Sweden (Dr Wasserman); and Hong Kong Jockey Club Center for Suicide Research and Prevention, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Dr Yip) the Journal of the American Medical Association, plus Lisa Firestone MD, Director at the Glendon Association, the Harvard School of Public Health, former Director of Research of the Medical Unit in Epidemiology in Psychiatry in Edinburgh Norman Kreitman, Director of Psychiatry St Frances Hospital, SF Mel Blaustein MD, Executive Director of Suicide Prevention in San Francisco Eve R. Meyer and expert in online psychology and behavior, researcher, author, and CEO & founder of the leading mental health and psychology network,Psych Central.com John Grohol MD...

They're all wrong. And you're right. OK?

by Guest Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:08 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

Where did I say I respected him, I used him to show that such studies are flawed which means his own views would be hypocritical.
Second, there is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

Fine have it your way Didge.
World experts J. John Mann, MD; Alan Apter, MD; Jose Bertolote, MD; Annette Beautrais, PhD; Dianne Currier, PhD; Ann Haas, PhD; Ulrich Hegerl, MD; Jouko Lonnqvist, MD; Kevin Malone, MD; Andrej Marusic, MD, PhD; Lars Mehlum, MD; George Patton, MD; Michael Phillips, MD; Wolfgang Rutz, MD; Zoltan Rihmer, MD, PhD, DSc; Armin Schmidtke, MD, PhD; David Shaffer, MD; Morton Silverman, MD; Yoshitomo Takahashi, MD; Airi Varnik, MD; Danuta Wasserman, MD; Paul Yip, PhD; Herbert Hendin, MD together with institutions New York State Psychiatric Institute, Division of Neuroscience (Drs Mann and Currier) and Division of Child psychiatry (Dr Schaffer), Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York; Department of Psychiatry, Schneiders Childrens Medical Center of Israel (Dr Apter); Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (Dr Bertolote); Canterbury Suicide Project, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Christchurch, New Zealand (Dr Beautrais); American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, New York, NY (Drs Haas and Hendin); Department of Psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany (Dr Hegerl); Department of Mental Health and Alcohol Research, National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, Finland (Dr Lonnqvist); Department of Psychiatry & Mental Health Research, St Vincents University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland (Dr Malone); Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubjana, Slovenia (Dr Marusic); Suicide Research and Prevention Unit, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway (Dr Mehlum); Centre for Adolescent Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia (Dr Patton); Beijing Suicide Research and Prevention Center, Beijing, China (Dr Phillips); Division of Psychiatry, Unit for Social Psychiatry and Health Promotion, Academic University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden (Dr Rutz); National Institute for Psychiatry and Neurology, Budapest, Hungary (Dr Rihmer); Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (Dr Schmidtke); National Suicide Prevention Technical Resource Center, Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, Newton, Mass (Dr Silverman); Division of Behavior Sciences, National Defense Medical College Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan (Dr Takahashi); Estonian-Swedish Suicidology Institute, Center Behavior and Health Science, Tallinn, Estonia (Dr Varnik); Department of Public Health Sciences at Karolinska Institute, Swedish National Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention of Mental Ill-Health, Stockholm, Sweden (Dr Wasserman); and Hong Kong Jockey Club Center for Suicide Research and Prevention, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Dr Yip) the Journal of the American Medical Association, plus Lisa Firestone MD, Director at the Glendon Association, the Harvard School of Public Health, former Director of Research of the Medical Unit in Epidemiology in Psychiatry in Edinburgh Norman Kreitman, Director of Psychiatry St Frances Hospital, SF Mel Blaustein MD, Executive Director of Suicide Prevention in San Francisco Eve R. Meyer and expert in online psychology and behavior, researcher, author, and CEO & founder of the leading mental health and psychology network,Psych Central.com John Grohol MD...

They're all wrong. And you're right. OK?

Dear me, you want them to debate me? Bring them here as am happy to show the flaws in their hypothesis, if all you can do is go by what others say, it shows you cannot think for yourself.
I see you prove my point you cannot answer any of the points I address to you where you claimed you did, this proves you do not and am very disappointed in you Lovedust, you are showing a complete copout so try try again:

There is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

by Guest Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:03 am

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Fine have it your way Didge.
World experts J. John Mann, MD; Alan Apter, MD; Jose Bertolote, MD; Annette Beautrais, PhD; Dianne Currier, PhD; Ann Haas, PhD; Ulrich Hegerl, MD; Jouko Lonnqvist, MD; Kevin Malone, MD; Andrej Marusic, MD, PhD; Lars Mehlum, MD; George Patton, MD; Michael Phillips, MD; Wolfgang Rutz, MD; Zoltan Rihmer, MD, PhD, DSc; Armin Schmidtke, MD, PhD; David Shaffer, MD; Morton Silverman, MD; Yoshitomo Takahashi, MD; Airi Varnik, MD; Danuta Wasserman, MD; Paul Yip, PhD; Herbert Hendin, MD together with institutions New York State Psychiatric Institute, Division of Neuroscience (Drs Mann and Currier) and Division of Child psychiatry (Dr Schaffer), Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York; Department of Psychiatry, Schneiders Childrens Medical Center of Israel (Dr Apter); Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (Dr Bertolote); Canterbury Suicide Project, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Christchurch, New Zealand (Dr Beautrais); American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, New York, NY (Drs Haas and Hendin); Department of Psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany (Dr Hegerl); Department of Mental Health and Alcohol Research, National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, Finland (Dr Lonnqvist); Department of Psychiatry & Mental Health Research, St Vincents University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland (Dr Malone); Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubjana, Slovenia (Dr Marusic); Suicide Research and Prevention Unit, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway (Dr Mehlum); Centre for Adolescent Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia (Dr Patton); Beijing Suicide Research and Prevention Center, Beijing, China (Dr Phillips); Division of Psychiatry, Unit for Social Psychiatry and Health Promotion, Academic University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden (Dr Rutz); National Institute for Psychiatry and Neurology, Budapest, Hungary (Dr Rihmer); Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (Dr Schmidtke); National Suicide Prevention Technical Resource Center, Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, Newton, Mass (Dr Silverman); Division of Behavior Sciences, National Defense Medical College Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan (Dr Takahashi); Estonian-Swedish Suicidology Institute, Center Behavior and Health Science, Tallinn, Estonia (Dr Varnik); Department of Public Health Sciences at Karolinska Institute, Swedish National Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention of Mental Ill-Health, Stockholm, Sweden (Dr Wasserman); and Hong Kong Jockey Club Center for Suicide Research and Prevention, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Dr Yip) the Journal of the American Medical Association, plus Lisa Firestone MD, Director at the Glendon Association, the Harvard School of Public Health, former Director of Research of the Medical Unit in Epidemiology in Psychiatry in Edinburgh Norman Kreitman, Director of Psychiatry St Frances Hospital, SF Mel Blaustein MD, Executive Director of Suicide Prevention in San Francisco Eve R. Meyer and expert in online psychology and behavior, researcher, author, and CEO & founder of the leading mental health and psychology network,Psych Central.com John Grohol MD...

They're all wrong. And you're right. OK?

Dear me, you want them to debate me? Bring them here as am happy to show the flaws in their hypothesis, if all you can do is go by what others say, it shows you cannot think for yourself.
I see you prove my point you cannot answer any of the points I address to you where you claimed you did, this proves you do not and am very disappointed in you Lovedust, you are showing a complete copout so try try again:

There is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

As I said Didge: the world experts are wrong; you're right. Well done.

by Guest Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:08 am

He's got a God Complex Lovey, whatever anyone says, no matter how many people who have spent their lives studying this and helping people with mental problems and suicidal thoughts say one thing, Didge will think he is above them, because after all, he's a silly little risk assessor and does such an important job the whole world has to listen to him.

You have the right approach, just tell the silly bugger he's right and ignore him. It's very sad.

I think he needs sectioning, but then he'd bore the psychiatrist to death telling him how he (Didge) knows better than the doctor until the poor doctor jumped off a bridge.

by Guest Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:44 am

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

Dear me, you want them to debate me? Bring them here as am happy to show the flaws in their hypothesis, if all you can do is go by what others say, it shows you cannot think for yourself.
I see you prove my point you cannot answer any of the points I address to you where you claimed you did, this proves you do not and am very disappointed in you Lovedust, you are showing a complete copout so try try again:

There is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

As I said Didge: the world experts are wrong; you're right. Well done.

They are experts in helping patients with many problems and issues, on whether something like nets will make people give up attempting suicide altogether is nothing as seen but pure speculation, based off them only finding a link themselves through flawed methodology, because they fail to rule out as seen other factors, hence why I keep asking you to address the problems with their findings..

So again, stop avoiding if you understand this and answer the points:

There is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

by Guest Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:21 am

If only you'd been there with the suicide prevention experts in Salzburg 2004. You could have talked some sense into them.

by Guest Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:27 am

lovedust wrote:If only you'd been there with the suicide prevention experts in Salzburg 2004. You could have talked some sense into them.

Wow ,what an answer to my many points you keep avoiding (deflection alert), if you do not know just say so and saves us all time that you are clearly wasting, so once again:

So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

by Guest Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:46 am

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:...John M. Grohol, Psy.D. is an expert in online psychology and behavior, researcher, author, and CEO & founder of the leading mental health and psychology network,Psych Central.com. Since receiving his doctorate in clinical psychology from Nova Southeastern University in 1995, Dr. Grohol has worked tirelessly as an online patient advocate and publisher of independent, objective mental health information designed to reduce the stigma associated with these concerns.

He founded Psych Central in 1995 as one of the first mental health and psychology sites that offered information about the symptoms and treatments of mental disorders, including interactive screening quizzes and self-help tools. It now is the home to over 170 support groups, over 200,000 members, and was recognized byTIME.com as one of the 50 Best Websites of 2008.

Dr. Grohol has also worked for a number of e-Health firms, including drkoop.com; the Internet's first online clinic, HelpHorizons.com; and Steve Case's Revolution Health, helping them with their own mental health centers and understanding the power of online self-help support groups.

As one of the pioneering leaders in psychology online, Dr. Grohol sits on the editorial board for the journal CyberPsychology, Social Networking & Behavior and is a founding member of the Society for Participatory Medicine. He is also the author ofThe Insider's Guide to Mental Health Resources Online (Guilford) and blogs regularly at e-Patients.net as well as on PsychCentral.com.
Show full bio

http://psychcentral.com/news/author/grohol

....

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t5448p700-golden-gate-bridge-suicide-net-plan-gets-boost-rebecca-black-autoplay-warning#122173

There's an interesting comment from John Grohol MD on this subject here:

How Does a Bridge Suicide Net Work?
By JOHN M. GROHOL, PSY.D.

As we noted a few days ago, the Golden Gate Bridge is finally getting a suicide barrier. However, it’s not so much a barrier as it is a net. A steel net, to be specific.

The net will be suspended from either side of the iconic span, and reach out about 20 feet. Out of the five barrier proposals considered, this is the only suicide barrier that will not interfere with tourists’ view from the bridge. It will also allow the 16 painters employed on the bridge to continue their current work routines (the other four barriers would’ve required additional effort and risk for the painters to do their work).

When people jump from the bridge into the net, it will hold them there, suspended some 740 feet over the entrance to the San Francisco Bay.

Denis Mulligan, the chief engineer of the bridge, recently explained to the San Francisco Chronicle how the net works — it envelops the suicide jumper, making it difficult, but not impossible, to get out:

“It wouldn’t be like a trampoline, that once you jump onto, it would be easy to jump off,” Mulligan said. But, he added, “If you’re very agile, very strong and focused, you may be able to climb out.”

The net will be angled and constructed in such a way as to make climbing out of it difficult. The 20 foot drop a person takes into the net will also likely be painful. The paper also described how the process would work in retrieving a person from the net:

During a rescue operation from the net, authorities would shut down a lane of traffic. A specialized vehicle, called a “snooper” truck, would be brought in. Outfitted with a mechanical arm similar to a cherry picker used by utility crews, two specially trained rescue workers would be lowered down to the net in a bucket to pull the person out.

A similar net was installed in Bern, Switzerland. According to the paper, “Researchers found that just the presence of the net stopped people from even trying to jump off the Munster Terrace, a medieval cathedral located in the old section of Bern, from which two or three people had been leaping to their deaths every year. They also found that the net did not shift suicides to other locations.”

Will it work on the Golden Gate Bridge? Prior research suggests that it will at least cut down on the number of successful attempts from the bridge.

After installation of suicide barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge in Bristol, England, researchers there found a significant decline in the number of successful suicides from the bridge. Importantly — and contrary to conventional wisdom — the researchers did not find an increase in jumps from other buildings or bridges in the area. In other words, people didn’t just go find another bridge to jump from.

A net is likely a less effective suicide barrier than a properly designed fence would be. It is hypothesized, however, that the net will work to take away the impulsiveness of the suicidal act. If you know ahead of time that the net is there, and will make it extremely painful and difficult (and in some cases, impossible) to actually complete the act, it’s likely most people will simply not bother trying.

Reference:

Bennewith, O., Nowers, M., & Gunnell, D. (2007). Effect of barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge, England, on local patterns of suicide: Implications for prevention. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(3), 266-267.

Steel net preferred for halting bridge jumpers, San Francisco Chronicle

^^ Already answered here Didge.

by Guest Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:51 am

No that is not you answering, that is somebody else giving their perception on nets, seriously, can you not think for yourself?

Even the above does not address my questions, does it?
Both the Bloor Street Viaduc and the example report from Irn states a significance increase in jumping elsewhere, so again to say it does not shows again how badly flawed the claim is in your link.

Although the barrier prevented suicides at Bloor Street Viaduct, the rate of suicide by jumping in Toronto remained unchanged.

So try again.

So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change, because all you are doing is deflecting from answering.

by Guest Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:07 am

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

Where did I say I respected him, I used him to show that such studies are flawed which means his own views would be hypocritical.
Second, there is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

Fine have it your way Didge.
World experts J. John Mann, MD; Alan Apter, MD; Jose Bertolote, MD; Annette Beautrais, PhD; Dianne Currier, PhD; Ann Haas, PhD; Ulrich Hegerl, MD; Jouko Lonnqvist, MD; Kevin Malone, MD; Andrej Marusic, MD, PhD; Lars Mehlum, MD; George Patton, MD; Michael Phillips, MD; Wolfgang Rutz, MD; Zoltan Rihmer, MD, PhD, DSc; Armin Schmidtke, MD, PhD; David Shaffer, MD; Morton Silverman, MD; Yoshitomo Takahashi, MD; Airi Varnik, MD; Danuta Wasserman, MD; Paul Yip, PhD; Herbert Hendin, MD together with institutions New York State Psychiatric Institute, Division of Neuroscience (Drs Mann and Currier) and Division of Child psychiatry (Dr Schaffer), Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York; Department of Psychiatry, Schneiders Childrens Medical Center of Israel (Dr Apter); Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (Dr Bertolote); Canterbury Suicide Project, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Christchurch, New Zealand (Dr Beautrais); American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, New York, NY (Drs Haas and Hendin); Department of Psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany (Dr Hegerl); Department of Mental Health and Alcohol Research, National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, Finland (Dr Lonnqvist); Department of Psychiatry & Mental Health Research, St Vincents University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland (Dr Malone); Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubjana, Slovenia (Dr Marusic); Suicide Research and Prevention Unit, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway (Dr Mehlum); Centre for Adolescent Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia (Dr Patton); Beijing Suicide Research and Prevention Center, Beijing, China (Dr Phillips); Division of Psychiatry, Unit for Social Psychiatry and Health Promotion, Academic University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden (Dr Rutz); National Institute for Psychiatry and Neurology, Budapest, Hungary (Dr Rihmer); Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (Dr Schmidtke); National Suicide Prevention Technical Resource Center, Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, Newton, Mass (Dr Silverman); Division of Behavior Sciences, National Defense Medical College Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan (Dr Takahashi); Estonian-Swedish Suicidology Institute, Center Behavior and Health Science, Tallinn, Estonia (Dr Varnik); Department of Public Health Sciences at Karolinska Institute, Swedish National Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention of Mental Ill-Health, Stockholm, Sweden (Dr Wasserman); and Hong Kong Jockey Club Center for Suicide Research and Prevention, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Dr Yip) the Journal of the American Medical Association, plus Lisa Firestone MD, Director at the Glendon Association, the Harvard School of Public Health, former Director of Research of the Medical Unit in Epidemiology in Psychiatry in Edinburgh Norman Kreitman, Director of Psychiatry St Frances Hospital, SF Mel Blaustein MD, Executive Director of Suicide Prevention in San Francisco Eve R. Meyer and expert in online psychology and behavior, researcher, author, and CEO & founder of the leading mental health and psychology network,Psych Central.com John Grohol MD...

They're all wrong. And you're right. OK?

by Guest Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:11 am

Wow, never seen someone come up with more excuse to not answering something than since George Bush was in office.

Try again:

So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change, because all you are doing is deflecting from answering.

by Guest Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:36 am

In fact, it ended like this, with all the evidence showing that all those who knew about, had researched and studied the subject of stopping suicides agreeing that taking away a method reduced the number, but in the end Lovey, Irn and I agreed that we could present Didge with every fact by every expert under the sun and he would still deny it. He even denied it when it turned out the expert he had been quoting had been campaigning for the net, thought it would reduce suicide and had been one of the guiding lights in getting it introduced. He still turned that on it's head. Faced with someone in total denial, we just said, yes Didge, no Didge, three bags full Didge, anything you say Didge, you've bored us to death.

by Guest Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:38 am

And he had lol

by Guest Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:40 am

Sassy wrote:In fact, it ended like this, with all the evidence showing that all those who knew about, had researched and studied the subject of stopping suicides agreeing that taking away a method reduced the number, but in the end Lovey, Irn and I agreed that we could present Didge with every fact by every expert under the sun and he would still deny it. He even denied it when it turned out the expert he had been quoting had been campaigning for the net, thought it would reduce suicide and had been one of the guiding lights in getting it introduced. He still turned that on it's head. Faced with someone in total denial, we just said, yes Didge, no Didge, three bags full Didge, anything you say Didge, you've bored us to death.

Do LD and Irn need you to speak for them?!
All dragging this thread up shows is that you did start it to wind up Quill.
You know that dragging others in is pure cowardice ?

by Guest Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:41 am

Sassy wrote:In fact, it ended like this, with all the evidence showing that all those who knew about, had researched and studied the subject of stopping suicides agreeing that taking away a method reduced the number, but in the end Lovey, Irn and I agreed that we could present Didge with every fact by every expert under the sun and he would still deny it. He even denied it when it turned out the expert he had been quoting had been campaigning for the net, thought it would reduce suicide and had been one of the guiding lights in getting it introduced. He still turned that on it's head. Faced with someone in total denial, we just said, yes Didge, no Didge, three bags full Didge, anything you say Didge, you've bored us to death.

So much for being on ignore, never seen someone claim to and yet constantly speak about me, proving my point itis just an excuse to evade answering

Again Sassy acting like a child, no you presented flawed evidence as I pointed out which none of you could explain about, in fact all of you deflected poorly each time on this.
I showed the methodology was poorly flawed, which again none of you had an answer to where many factors where not only stated to have been ignored in the reports but not even taken as the cause of levels of suicide increasing or now decreasing.
You now drag this ip, because you are constantly being exposed for a complete shit stirrer and the more you keep doing so, the more it is being noted by many on her

Again you need to grow the fuck up

by Guest Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:43 am

Nems wrote:
Sassy wrote:In fact, it ended like this, with all the evidence showing that all those who knew about, had researched and studied the subject of stopping suicides agreeing that taking away a method reduced the number, but in the end Lovey, Irn and I agreed that we could present Didge with every fact by every expert under the sun and he would still deny it. He even denied it when it turned out the expert he had been quoting had been campaigning for the net, thought it would reduce suicide and had been one of the guiding lights in getting it introduced. He still turned that on it's head. Faced with someone in total denial, we just said, yes Didge, no Didge, three bags full Didge, anything you say Didge, you've bored us to death.

Do LD and Irn need you to speak for them?!
All dragging this thread up shows is that you did start it to wind up Quill.
You know that dragging others in is pure cowardice ?

It seems I am her new attempt at goading even though she claims to have me on ignore, yet talks about me constantly, as much as I am flattered, it proves she is nothing but infantile to be honest

by eddie Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:43 am

FFS!
My point wasn't about the fricking net!

It was about the fact that it was an intent to goad someone.

by Guest Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:46 am

Didge wrote:
Nems wrote:

Do LD and Irn need you to speak for them?!
All dragging this thread up shows is that you did start it to wind up Quill.
You know that dragging others in is pure cowardice ?

It seems I am her new attempt at goading even though she claims to have me on ignore, yet talks about me constantly, as much as I am flattered, it proves she is nothing but infantile to be honest

No argument from me

by Irn Bru Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:47 am

Nems wrote:
Sassy wrote:In fact, it ended like this, with all the evidence showing that all those who knew about, had researched and studied the subject of stopping suicides agreeing that taking away a method reduced the number, but in the end Lovey, Irn and I agreed that we could present Didge with every fact by every expert under the sun and he would still deny it. He even denied it when it turned out the expert he had been quoting had been campaigning for the net, thought it would reduce suicide and had been one of the guiding lights in getting it introduced. He still turned that on it's head. Faced with someone in total denial, we just said, yes Didge, no Didge, three bags full Didge, anything you say Didge, you've bored us to death.

Do LD and Irn need you to speak for them?!
All dragging this thread up shows is that you did start it to wind up Quill.
You know that dragging others in is pure cowardice?

You have a point there so maybe we'll hear no more of this 'posse' nonsense that just drags others into it as well.

by Guest Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:22 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Nems wrote:

Do LD and Irn need you to speak for them?!
All dragging this thread up shows is that you did start it to wind up Quill.
You know that dragging others in is pure cowardice?

You have a point there so maybe we'll hear no more of this 'posse' nonsense that just drags others into it as well.

Thanks Irn xx
I know you must find it maddening to be dragged into the mire especially when you are not even here!
Just one thing though, you haven't mentioned 'GRANGE HILL GANG' or 'NORMAL CREW' etc. Was that just an oversight on your part? Thanks

by Guest Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:35 pm

And surely this one should have been locked weeks ago, Benji?

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:12 pm

Sassy wrote:In fact, it ended like this, with all the evidence showing that all those who knew about, had researched and studied the subject of stopping suicides agreeing that taking away a method reduced the number, but in the end Lovey, Irn and I agreed that we could present Didge with every fact by every expert under the sun and he would still deny it. He even denied it when it turned out the expert he had been quoting had been campaigning for the net, thought it would reduce suicide and had been one of the guiding lights in getting it introduced. He still turned that on it's head. Faced with someone in total denial, we just said, yes Didge, no Didge, three bags full Didge, anything you say Didge, you've bored us to death.

The Harvard School of Public Health also offers the following:

Means Reduction Saves Lives

A number of studies have indicated that when lethal means are made less available or less deadly, suicide rates by that method decline, and frequently suicide rates overall decline. This has been demonstrated in a number of areas: bridge barriers, detoxification of domestic gas, pesticides, medication packaging, and others.

For example, in rural areas of Asia and the Pacific Islands, pesticides are a leading method of suicide attempt (Gunnell 2003). Pesticides in widespread use have changed over time, and suicide deaths have been observed to rise and fall with the toxicity and case fatality rate of the particular pesticides currently in use. For example, the suicide rate in Samoa rose and fell with the introduction and control of paraquat, a pesticide that was more lethal than the pesticides in previous use in the country. Suicides declined dramatically in Sri Lanka following restriction of more lethal pesticides (Gunnell 2007).

Coal Gas in the United Kingdom

Prior to the 1950s, domestic gas in the United Kingdom was derived from coal and contained about 10-20% carbon monoxide (CO). Poisoning by gas inhalation was the leading means of suicide in the UK. In 1958, natural gas, virtually free of carbon monoxide, was introduced into the UK. By 1971, 69% of gas used was natural gas. Over time, as the carbon monoxide in gas decreased, suicides also decreased (Kreitman 1976). Suicides by carbon monoxide decreased dramatically, while suicides by other methods increased a small amount, resulting in a net decrease in overall suicides, particularly among females.

Over time, rates of suicide began to increase again although not to the pre-1965 levels. One author has estimated that over a ten-year period, an estimated six to seven thousand lives were saved by the change in domestic gas content (Hawton 2002)

Reducing access to lethal means does not always reduce the overall suicide rate. For example, restricting a low-lethality method or a method infrequently used may not make a detectable difference in the suicide rate. Restricting a very low-lethality method-if it results in attempters substituting a higher-lethality method-could in fact increase the overall suicide rate. Means reduction doesn’t change the underlying suicidal impulse or necessarily reduce attempts: rather, it saves lives by reducing the lethality of attempts

Gunnell D and Eddleston M. Suicide by intentional ingestion of pesticides: a continuing tragedy in developing countries. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2003;32:902-909.

Gunnell D, Fernando R, Hewagama M, Priyangika WD, Konradsen F, Eddleston M. The impact of pesticide regulations on suicide in Sri Lanka. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(6):1235-42.

Kreitman N. The coal gas story. United Kingdom suicide rates, 1960-71. Br J Prev Soc Med. 1976 Jun;30(2):86-93.

Hawton K. United Kingdom legislation on pack sizes of analgesics: background, rationale, and effects on suicide and deliberate self-harm. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 2002;32(3):223-229.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/saves-lives/

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:15 pm

Still none of my points have been addressed Lovedust, you are just posting similar view points which failed to factor in the many points I have stated already
Let me know when you wish to address them finally!

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:20 pm

Phildidge wrote:Still none of my points have been addressed Lovedust, you are just posting similar view points which failed to factor in the many points I have stated already
Let me know when you wish to address them finally!

Did the studies you quoted subdivide subjects into socioeconomic background and whether or not they were being bullied?

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:22 pm

lovedust wrote:
Phildidge wrote:Still none of my points have been addressed Lovedust, you are just posting similar view points which failed to factor in the many points I have stated already
Let me know when you wish to address them finally!

Did the studies you quoted subdivide subjects into socioeconomic background and whether or not they were being bullied?

Wow again you ask me questions with failing to answer mine, untill you do Lovedust I am having you dictate how this debate happens, as again you have failed countless times to answer my questions

So answer them, not use links that provide the same flawed information which fails to factor in many reasons and points

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:31 pm

Phildidge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Did the studies you quoted subdivide subjects into socioeconomic background and whether or not they were being bullied?

Wow again you ask me questions with failing to answer mine, untill you do Lovedust I am having you dictate how this debate happens, as again you have failed countless times to answer my questions

So answer them, not use links that provide the same flawed information which fails to factor in many reasons and points

You've told me repeatedly that the constellation of experts that Irn, Korben, Sassy and I have quoted have been making their assessments on the basis of flawed studies, because those studies did not subdivide into categories you deemed necessary for their validity, such as socioeconomic background and whether the subjects were being bullied or not.

So: do the studies you have quoted to support your position subdivide subjects in terms of socioeconomic background and whether they have been bullied or not? Recall: by your reasoning, your own argument is invalid if they do not.

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:35 pm

lovedust wrote:
Phildidge wrote:

Wow again you ask me questions with failing to answer mine, untill you do Lovedust I am having you dictate how this debate happens, as again you have failed countless times to answer my questions

So answer them, not use links that provide the same flawed information which fails to factor in many reasons and points

You've told me repeatedly that the constellation of experts that Irn, Korben, Sassy and I have quoted have been making their assessments on the basis of flawed studies, because those studies did not subdivide into categories you deemed necessary for their validity, such as socioeconomic background and whether the subjects were being bullied or not.

So: do the studies you have quoted to support your position subdivide subjects in terms of socioeconomic background and whether they have been bullied or not? Recall: by your reasoning, your own argument is invalid if they do not.

Still no answer

Try again

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:38 pm

Phildidge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

You've told me repeatedly that the constellation of experts that Irn, Korben, Sassy and I have quoted have been making their assessments on the basis of flawed studies, because those studies did not subdivide into categories you deemed necessary for their validity, such as socioeconomic background and whether the subjects were being bullied or not.

So: do the studies you have quoted to support your position subdivide subjects in terms of socioeconomic background and whether they have been bullied or not? Recall: by your reasoning, your own argument is invalid if they do not.

Still no answer

Try again

What a good idea:

Do the studies you have quoted to support your position subdivide subjects in terms of socioeconomic background and whether they have been bullied or not?

^^

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:38 pm

Still no answer to my questions

Try again

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:43 pm

Phildidge wrote:Still no answer to my questions

Try again

..but LD is asking you a question Didge, which you are avoiding Laughing

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:45 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Phildidge wrote:Still no answer to my questions

Try again

..but LD is asking you a question Didge, which you are avoiding

Really, then I suggest you read back to the many on this page where she failed to, which she has constantly done throughout the thread, so I suggest before you jump in making absurd points, you ask her to answer mine

Just like here:

there is no evidence to connect here, they are again just going off a decrease overall, but clearly on all of the reports the suicide jumpers rate increases in areas close by.
You have avoided my opinion and questions, then just asked more questions yourself or just copied what others have said. I do not mind you using experts to back your view, but you use them as debate, where they cannot be responded to, that is a flawed philosophy in debating and proves you know little on the subject, you just believe what they say.
I deem what experts are claiming as flawed on claiming that a net will make a person who is suicidal give up on the idea, because just one place has a net, that is flawed and they come to this conclusion based on an overall decrease in a set time period, not ruling out if it is in fact other factors that have created this decrease. Again in Toronto, the numbers doubled for other areas near by where people jumped. The nets will deter people jumping on that bridge and save accidents which I am glad for that benefit to help, they will not though and there is no evidence to link they will reduce suicide rates overall or stop people using other methods, when again world wide the numbers have increased by 60%.
Again human intervention is best, for helping people and deterring people from trying.
So can you show me on any of these reports they have ruled out other factors that have could have created the decrease overall in an area over that short time period? Can they explain why it does increase again, if as claimed suicide nets put people off altogether attempting suicide? Can they explain why jumping increases nearby on other buildings, if it s meant to put people off attempting suicide altogether?

So I have asked you again questions, here, I would like to see some answers for a change

by Guest Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:45 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Phildidge wrote:Still no answer to my questions

Try again

..but LD is asking you a question Didge, which you are avoiding

No worries JD, maybe it will be fourth time lucky:

Do the studies you have quoted to support your position subdivide subjects in terms of socioeconomic background and whether they have been bullied or not? ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead:: ::cheerlead::

by Sponsored content