Anyone else still not convinced that SN is peaceful?

[InTheAirTonight]

I've read some of the failed attempts saying they experienced no pain, but I'm still very skeptical.

 

[GoBack]

Yeah, it doesn't sound peaceful to me. It sounds scary and "Oh no what the fuck did I just eat" . And then you've taken something to stop yourself puking too so...

In rational moments I couldn't do it. But in desperation I could easily swallow it. But it takes all that preparation so I don't know if my body would let me take it in the end

 

[Kumachan]

I've read some of the failed attempts saying they experienced no pain, but I'm still very skeptical.

What is your point exactly?

 

[KiraLittleOwl]

It is only relatively peaceful. Not completely peaceful. It's unpleasant. You will feel sick like a very bad hangover, your heart will race, you will sweat and feel nausea. Weak, fainting.

 

[Disintegration]

As has been said before... you are killing yourself.... when seeking a convenient, affordable method with little to no pain SN is definitely one of the best ways. The numerous members on here that have used this method or have supported the science behind it is overwhelming.

As has been said before... you are killing yourself.... when seeking a convenient, affordable method with little to no pain SN is definitely one of the best ways. The numerous members on here that have used this method or have supported the science behind it is overwhelming.

Pick your poison.

 

[Emily123]

I am not sure . If I was sure , I would npt be alive now

Yeah, it doesn't sound peaceful to me. It sounds scary and "Oh no what the fuck did I just eat" . And then you've taken something to stop yourself puking too so...

In rational moments I couldn't do it. But in desperation I could easily swallow it. But it takes all that preparation so I don't know if my body would let me take it in the end

The same for me . I am justwaiting that my depression gets that much bad that I can do it . It was very easy for me to do it if N was available

 

[GoBack]

Disintegration

Pick your poison.

Exactly, it's poison. Not meant to be peaceful really.

 

[Alain]

Not all poisons are meant to make hurt before you die. SN is one of those I don't want because it's a fact that it involves pain (more or less depending of those who tried).
I would not try SN even if I could have some.

 

[Jumper Geo]

I think it's quite peaceful some people experience mild burning from the salt considering you only use 50ml of water, it will be interesting to read the PPH in 6 months time as they are carrying out studies with members filming themselves so should get some reliable feedback.

 

[Disintegration]

Disintegration

Pick your poison.

Exactly, it's poison. Not meant to be peaceful really.

Better than a lot of other poisons. By all means... if someone can obtain N or use the exit bag method, go for it. Any other painless ways to go?

 

[Didymus]

I've read some of the failed attempts saying they experienced no pain, but I'm still very skeptical.

I wonder about the peacefulness of your favorite 5 methods compared to SN:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/post-your-top-5-suicide-methods.39347/post-727001

 

[X-Kid]

It's probably the easiest and peaceful way to go. Sure I'd rather go out like my dog. Put to sleep and then euthanized, but since those substances are hard to come by and SN is easy to get, that's why I'd go with it. Partial suspension hanging can't be more peaceful imo.

 

[autumnal]

Yeah, it doesn't sound peaceful to me. It sounds scary and "Oh no what the fuck did I just eat" . And then you've taken something to stop yourself puking too so...

There is a difference between a method being peaceful, and the individual having doubts about the actual suicide attempt itself.

If one was properly ready to suicide, without any significant doubts remaining, why would they be thinking 'Oh no what the fuck did I just eat'? Well obviously, you just ate the poison you took with the intention of ending your life, an outcome you should be looking forward to having rationally made that decision in the first place.

Presumably your reference to antiemetics ('taken something to stop yourself puking') means you would instead rather have the ability to induce vomiting and abort the attempt after wondering 'what the fuck did I just eat'. This again says more about a possible lack of readiness to be attempting suicide itself rather than any fundamental shortcomings with the SN method.

This is not only (or even particularly) a reference to just the OP, but it generally strikes me that those who take strongest issue with the timeframe between taking SN and unconsciousness might perhaps be the ones still having the most doubts about suicide itself. There is of course nothing inherently wrong with having such doubts, nor with choosing not to attempt or aborting an attempt once already begun. But rather than criticizing SN, it would do both themselves and other members more good if they could explore and acknowledge these feelings of doubt.

To switch from psychobabble to facts for a moment, SN is described by two medical euthanasia experts in the PPH as "a peaceful and reliable death", "an effective and peaceful death" and that [with the addition of beta-blockers] "consciousness is quickly lost". They also gathered information on observed deaths and stated "...information on ten nitrite deaths had been received - all had died peacefully". SN is given an overall rating of 7/10 for peacefulness.

Note that nobody here is suggesting that SN is completely free of any discomfort. It is not. Nor is it as peaceful as Nembutal (N). But if you cannot obtain N for legal or practical reasons, SN is probably the next best thing.

If you can't be convinced by the expert opinion of medical doctors, frankly I'm not sure what kind of evidence would ever reassure you. That is apart from the personal experience of your own future SN attempt, after which you regrettably won't be in any position to go back and agree with the experts!

 

[GoBack]

There is a difference between a method being peaceful, and the individual having doubts about the actual suicide attempt itself.

If one was properly ready to suicide, without any significant doubts remaining, why would they be thinking 'Oh no what the fuck did I just eat'? Well obviously, you just ate the poison you took with the intention of ending your life, an outcome you should be looking forward to having rationally made that decision in the first place.

Presumably your reference to antiemetics ('taken something to stop yourself puking') means you would instead rather have the ability to induce vomiting and abort the attempt after wondering 'what the fuck did I just eat'. This again says more about a possible lack of readiness to be attempting suicide itself rather than any fundamental shortcomings with the SN method.

This is not only (or even particularly) a reference to just the OP, but it generally strikes me that those who take strongest issue with the timeframe between taking SN and unconsciousness might perhaps be the ones still having the most doubts about suicide itself. There is of course nothing inherently wrong with having such doubts, nor with choosing not to attempt or aborting an attempt once already begun. But rather than criticizing SN, it would do both themselves and other members more good if they could explore and acknowledge these feelings of doubt.

To switch from psychobabble to facts for a moment, SN is described by two medical euthanasia experts in the PPH as "a peaceful and reliable death", "an effective and peaceful death" and that [with the addition of beta-blockers] "consciousness is quickly lost". They also gathered information on observed deaths and stated "...information on ten nitrite deaths had been received - all had died peacefully". SN is given an overall rating of 7/10 for peacefulness.

Note that nobody here is suggesting that SN is completely free of any discomfort. It is not. Nor is it as peaceful as Nembutal (N). But if you cannot obtain N for legal or practical reasons, SN is probably the next best thing.

If you can't be convinced by the expert opinion of medical doctors, frankly I'm not sure what kind of evidence would ever reassure you. That is apart from the personal experience of your own future SN attempt, after which you regrettably won't be in any position to go back and agree with the experts!

I'm not criticizing Sn, it is what it is. I just feel that a lot of people think it's more peaceful than it really is.

 

[autumnal]

I'm not criticizing Sn, it is what it is. I just feel that a lot of people think it's more peaceful than it really is.

I don't see how anyone who has properly read both the PPH and Stan's Guide could have an inaccurate view of SN's symptoms or relative peacefulness. And anyone who forms their opinion of SN or attempts to use it without reading those two key resources is just setting themselves up for disaster anyway.

 

[Emily123]

There is a difference between a method being peaceful, and the individual having doubts about the actual suicide attempt itself.

If one was properly ready to suicide, without any significant doubts remaining, why would they be thinking 'Oh no what the fuck did I just eat'? Well obviously, you just ate the poison you took with the intention of ending your life, an outcome you should be looking forward to having rationally made that decision in the first place.

Presumably your reference to antiemetics ('taken something to stop yourself puking') means you would instead rather have the ability to induce vomiting and abort the attempt after wondering 'what the fuck did I just eat'. This again says more about a possible lack of readiness to be attempting suicide itself rather than any fundamental shortcomings with the SN method.

This is not only (or even particularly) a reference to just the OP, but it generally strikes me that those who take strongest issue with the timeframe between taking SN and unconsciousness might perhaps be the ones still having the most doubts about suicide itself. There is of course nothing inherently wrong with having such doubts, nor with choosing not to attempt or aborting an attempt once already begun. But rather than criticizing SN, it would do both themselves and other members more good if they could explore and acknowledge these feelings of doubt.

To switch from psychobabble to facts for a moment, SN is described by two medical euthanasia experts in the PPH as "a peaceful and reliable death", "an effective and peaceful death" and that [with the addition of beta-blockers] "consciousness is quickly lost". They also gathered information on observed deaths and stated "...information on ten nitrite deaths had been received - all had died peacefully". SN is given an overall rating of 7/10 for peacefulness.

Note that nobody here is suggesting that SN is completely free of any discomfort. It is not. Nor is it as peaceful as Nembutal (N). But if you cannot obtain N for legal or practical reasons, SN is probably the next best thing.

If you can't be convinced by the expert opinion of medical doctors, frankly I'm not sure what kind of evidence would ever reassure you. That is apart from the personal experience of your own future SN attempt, after which you regrettably won't be in any position to go back and agree with the experts!

this is exactly what i am worried about.The time between taking sn and death . i am worried that the level of pain or discomfort be in the level that i can not tolerate it. or being in a condition that i can not move but i feel a very high level of pain

I don't see how anyone who has properly read both the PPH and Stan's Guide could have an inaccurate view of SN's symptoms or relative peacefulness. And anyone who forms their opinion of SN or attempts to use it without reading those two key resources is just setting themselves up for disaster anyway.

i am worried that they had a high level of pain that they could never report .There is a difference between when you sleep with a strong medicine like N and when you faint for the lack of oxygen in blood

 

[goinghome]

this is exactly what i am worried about.The time between taking sn and death . i am worried that the level of pain or discomfort be in the level that i can not tolerate it. or being in a condition that i can not move but i feel a very high level of pain

i am worried that they had a high level of pain that they could never report .There is a difference between when you sleep with a strong medicine like N and when you faint for the lack of oxygen in blood

There are multiple accounts of others personally witnessing peaceful deaths with SN over video: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f7o4V0TWHL-0NpCvdKg3FsCbzvvQMGoADeMjqxYzrb8/edit. There is overwhelming evidence that there is minor stomach discomfort as the worst side effect in most cases.

 

[Cashewmilk]

this is exactly what i am worried about.The time between taking sn and death . i am worried that the level of pain or discomfort be in the level that i can not tolerate it. or being in a condition that i can not move but i feel a very high level of pain

i am worried that they had a high level of pain that they could never report .There is a difference between when you sleep with a strong medicine like N and when you faint for the lack of oxygen in blood

Doesn't N have an extremely horrific taste because the bottles A gives are injectable? Don't people need an antiemetic for N and I heard it takes a long time, although you'd be sleeping for most of it. Besides if you don't have 850 USD to lose then I wouldn't gamble. It's truly a gamble and only the lucky ones win and receive theirs. If it was guaranteed I'd receive it, I'd absolutely find 850 USD.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Every time there's a post like this, someone doubting the peacefulness and painlessness of SN, I know there will be arguments against the OP. It's like the doubt pokes at someone's beliefs which they hold dear.

Sure, there's science behind the method, and there are anecdotal accounts, but in the end, the interpretation of peaceful or painless is up to the person who experiences it.

Ultimately, I think it is a largely subjective experience. Some folks can shrug off and ride out certain symptoms, while others will experience them as suffering. And yes, there are the few who slip peacefully away; would that it were consistent for all, but it seems that, because SN does not narrowly target certain systems and responses like N, every body is going to have variations in responses, as well as how they emotionally react, or don't, to the physical responses.

From having seen hundreds of comments on this subject over several months, I've noticed that some folks appear attached to how much they want an SN ctb to be peaceful and painless, and react to questioning from this stance. There is often focus on the few anecdotes that demonstrate it was close to N, while implicitly setting aside the many that reveal it was for some a miserable experience. This is confirmation bias, and brings comfort. So it's no wonder to me that the response to questions like the OP's bring about a defense of what one holds dear. If I were motivated to do so, it would be interesting to read every SN account, and then go back and review each member's posts leading up to the actual attempt. I wonder how many held dear and committed to a hope for peacefulness, only to be taken off guard by an experience of something much different.

I'm glad that this conversation is happening now and not back when I joined, when SS had an atmosphere of a cult of SN, and woe to those didn't blindly drink it but dared to question. Stan's guide was linked in a comment on every SN goodbye thread, making a deeply personal final experience a kind of footnote to Stan's. Any time someone questioned the peacefulness or painlessness of the method, there were always some responses defending the sacred method as if against near-monsters who would dare to try to sully it, which is attempted suppression of the questioner and any who would dare to follow. Things have chilled out, but with each new thread, responses seem to me to demonstrate there is still emotional attachment to being "right" about the method rather than objective acceptance of another's doubt, of their personal and therefore valid rejection of drinking the kool-aid, of looking past intentional or unintentional proselytizing and saying, "There's something more than what's being pumped up here."




TL;DR

A far more interesting question for me than that of this thread is, given the historical and ongoing emotionally-driven responses to questioning the method, is the thread intentional provocation on the part of the OP, or are they trying to work something out for themselves through dialogue, perhaps even to reach their own preferred confirmation of bias against it? As one member pointed out, the OP commented on the top 5 methods thread; it was a totally smart ass response -- is this a totally smart ass post, meant to work everyone up and set them scurrying to fight for the OP's amusement? Perhaps his/her post history will also be revelatory about his/her motivations and character; I haven't checked that, either.

 

[oneanonymous]

It's probably the easiest and peaceful way to go. Sure I'd rather go out like my dog. Put to sleep and then euthanized, but since those substances are hard to come by and SN is easy to get, that's why I'd go with it. Partial suspension hanging can't be more peaceful imo.

Partial can be fairly peaceful for some people. It just depends on how long it takes to pass out. The times I've tried, it wasn't painful, just mildly uncomfortable. Then again, I also didn't pass out. But I also made a lot of mistakes. I read even more about it afterward and think I can improve my chances. I used a door knob, which isn't ideal and I didn't place the cord right where my carotid arteries are. Now I would place something, some people even said socks worked, right where the arteries are so more pressure is put on them than anywhere else. If done right, you'll still be able to breathe and it shouldn't be bad at all, especially if you pass out in mere seconds. But everyone is different. Just the idea of having a ligature tied around the neck could make it awful for some people.

As far as SN goes, I'm pretty sure I'd be one of the people who experiences more pain with it, as I already have a very sensitive stomach and I'm easily prone to nausea. I can't take any kind of dopamine blocker because I already have akathisia, and that will no doubt make it even more severe. So my last minutes would be absolute hell. I wonder if using something like ondansetron for nausea, which I have, would be okay. I know everyone says it has to be dopamine related, but I wonder if that is actually true.

 

[Soul]

this is exactly what i am worried about.The time between taking sn and death . i am worried that the level of pain or discomfort be in the level that i can not tolerate it. or being in a condition that i can not move but i feel a very high level of pain

In my nightmares those are scenarios from life, not from suicide. If either of those things were happening to me outside of suicide, I'd be maximally distressed: what should I do - how can I stop feeling this - can't anyone help me - and so on. But in the course of committing suicide - by whatever means, not SN in particular - all I have to do is go through this. I don't have to look pretty or act classy. And I *can* tolerate it because there's no other choice. Just get through it to where I'm dead.

I don't know if my view could help you at all, @Emily123, but maybe you see what I mean: Things that might be scary in life are simply part of the scenery of dying. We don't have to worry about them. We just go through them and then we're dead.

 

[Kumachan]

@GoodPersonEffed , one thing is to do research, ask LEGITIMATE questions and expand our knowledge. The OP is skeptical... Great. How is this thread useful? Its not about Sn-cult... Most ppl here are distressed and desperate to find a working method as it is.

 

[TheGoodGuy]

I've read some of the failed attempts saying they experienced no pain, but I'm still very skeptical.

I am probably the biggest skeptical of this method and I am sure people are tired of me saying the same over and over but SN imo is just broscience on this site sure it will kill you but so will other chemicals such as anti-freeze but I am very uncertain if it will be peaceful, I am not saying it won´t be but it might not be the only "evidence" is the words from people on this forum i.e. broscience.

With opiates/opiods there are tons of data about how peaceful it is just watch basically any heroin documentary where they talk to heroin addicts who overdosed and tell how peacefull it is, SN however there is basically nothing I haven´t even seen it being mentioned anywhere but this site.

 

[Ulisses]

you will do my ctb with sn, and i have in mind for the symptom guide, so i already know or what awaits me. so don't be anxious thinking too much until one hour to pass out

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@GoodPersonEffed , one thing is to do research, ask LEGITIMATE questions and expand our knowledge. The OP is skeptical... Great. How is this thread useful? Its not about Sn-cult... Most ppl here are distressed and desperate to find a working method as it is.

My final paragraph questioned the motive for the thread.

I also like reacted your comment, "What is the point exactly?"

You disagree with other elements of my comment: my observations, and the opinions I extrapolate from them, based on my own perspective and experience. I accept that you disagree with and reject them.

 

[autumnal]

Sure, there's science behind the method, and there are anecdotal accounts, but in the end, the interpretation of peaceful or painless is up to the person who experiences it.

Ultimately, I think it is a largely subjective experience. Some folks can shrug off and ride out certain symptoms, while others will experience them as suffering. And yes, there are the few who slip peacefully away; would that it were consistent for all, but it seems that, because SN does not narrowly target certain systems and responses like N, every body is going to have variations in responses, as well as how they emotionally react, or don't, to the physical responses.

The science and medical expertise (PPH) behind the method is what places (and indeed should place) a high degree of confidence in the relative peacefulness of SN. It's the physiological understanding of the mechanisms involved that leads to prediction and understanding of what symptoms may be experienced and their likely degree of distress caused. Just because we each have a subjective phenomenological interpretation of peacefulness and painlessness doesn't mean that a method can't also be objectively relatively peaceful.

Unfortunately, I've noticed a reliance on appealing to subjectivity on the forum that is socially admirable but scientifically and medically erroneous. While emotional state, prior expectations and pain tolerance levels may alter our perception of any given symptom, these (largely) don't determine whether or not the symptom occurs in the first place, especially for key symptoms. That is caused by physiology, and physiology says with confidence that certain things may happen due to SN (headache, nausea), certain things will definitely happen due to SN (methemoglobinemia), and certain things will not happen due to SN (bradycardia, increased mental acuity). It is the expert understanding of physiology held by the medical doctors who authored the PPH which gives us confidence in their assessment of the relative peacefulness. They know what may happen, what is certain to happen and what will not happen in any given scenario.

I also believe that SN does specifically target enough systems and mechanisms for its effects to be known and relatively uniform, in a similar sense to how N is. The only reason SN has more of a range of symptoms than N is that you are conscious longer with SN and so actually have the opportunity to experience them, rather than because SN's symptoms are somehow less predictable than N's are.

I am probably the biggest skeptical of this method and I am sure people are tired of me saying the same over and over but SN imo is just broscience on this site sure it will kill you but so will other chemicals such as anti-freeze but I am very uncertain if it will be peaceful, I am not saying it won´t be but it might not be the only "evidence" is the words from people on this forum i.e. broscience.

With opiates/opiods there are tons of data about how peaceful it is just watch basically any heroin documentary where they talk to heroin addicts who overdosed and tell how peacefull it is, SN however there is basically nothing I haven´t even seen it being mentioned anywhere but this site.

I explained to you previously that SN is really not 'broscience'.

I also mentioned in that post that you really need to read the PPH, and once you do so, you will understand that SN is in fact mentioned in places other than this site. Also read my response to @GoodPersonEffed in the first half of this post to understand the source and validity of medical evidence about SN's peacefulness.

The reasons there is less data about SN compared to opiods:

• SN has been used as a suicide method for a lot less time than opioids have existed.
• SN has no recreational uses, so there is not going to be the wealth of data that you would get in the case of recreational opioid users who accidentally overdose.

As I have pointed out previously in this same thread, your analogy likening SN to the pain and discomfort of antifreeze is completely incorrect and dangerously false.

 

[TheGoodGuy]

@autumnal yes and I looked in the PPH file and couldn´t find anything about SN, instead of just mentioning the PPH or linking to resources everytime people ask a previously asked question maybe you could link the actual thread about the subject.

When people need answers to something I have discussed in a previous post I post the link so it´s just one click away you should do the same.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

1. The science and medical expertise (PPH) behind the method is what places (and indeed should place) a high degree of confidence in the relative peacefulness of SN.

2. Just because we each have a subjective phenomenological interpretation of peacefulness and painlessness doesn't mean that a method can't also be objectively relatively peaceful.

Rather than respond to every individual point in your comment, I chose to highlight and directly address these two.


Speaking to the first, a high degree of confidence is not equal to subsequent lived experience. The confidence is anticipation, the lived experience is the actual result for that individual, and the lived experiences have varied. The method does not perform like Newton's laws of physics, there are variations in what symptoms are experienced, their severity, their duration, and their subjective tolerability. If you want to approach this from a purely scientific perspective, a scientist always leaves room for doubt, even if something has had 100% consistent results (and the individual experiences have not been exactly the same, as I stated about variations in symptoms). A purely objective scientist (if one exists) knows that confidence increases but can never be fully relied upon, even with Newton's laws. With SN, there is sufficient evidence of lived experience to confidently say that the method works, not that it is universally peaceful or painless. Also, from a combined perspective of logic and semiotics (making meaning through symbolic language) your use of "should" indicates your own subjective stance, that is, what you yourself believe is universally applicable, but "should" and "is" are by their very natures often incompatible, otherwise "should" would have no need to exist. Until you yourself experience SN, you cannot know whether your confidence in expert opinions will be validated or disproven, yet it seems you seek to invalidate others' lived experiences with "should," and medical experts invalidate personal experiences all the time despite evidence to the contrary, so their expertise, while substantial, is not remotely infallible.

With regard to the second statement, I argue with an analogy: water is objectively good for people and is in fact necessary to sustain life, but some people subjectively absolutely hate the taste, and hate is an experience of suffering. (Edit: suffering is the antithesis of peacefulness.)


You are clearly highly intelligent, there is no doubt in that, so I'm not slamming you, but making a constructive criticism about your reasoning process. I acknowledge this is a limited perspective, I am imperfect, and I leave it to you to test for yourself if it is valuable or not: It seems to me that when you accept something, you support that acceptance with fallacies of logic, and further insist that acceptance "should" be universal because, to you, your acceptance is based on objectivity. This "should" is in itself emotion-based or subjective, in that it is a kind of triangulation to reinforce power rather than reason or fact, such that: "The experts have power/total validity, and my reasoning and agreement with them has power/total validity, therefore you must agree; if you don't agree, you are powerless/invalid/incapable of independent comprehension and the ability to draw valid conclusions." If I were analyzing this in a graduate seminar, I would say that you are enslaved by and in agreement with medical hegemony, much as a colonial subject buys into the false validity of an imperial power's right to rule and dictate to its subjects, who are coerced/unduly influenced into willing submission and agreement with it (edit: and, ideally, put it on a pedestal so that it is both worshipped and untouchable).

 

[Weightoftheworld]

I like the idea that's it's more peaceful for whoever finds me. As long as it gets the job done, I don't care if I feel some pain. I do think it'd be better for someone to find me like that though rather than hanging or with a bag over my head.

 

[shipwreck]

One thing that's not in dispute is that the physiological effects of ingesting a substance vary with the individual. With medicines, we refer to undesirable reactions as side effects. One person may experience them, another not. And one person might find the side effects more tolerable than another. A side effect label for SN might list nausea, vomiting, panic, stomach pain, and survival