Anyone else still not convinced that SN is peaceful?

[Skyview]

Jump over to @ X-Ace-X thread ; podcast on SN ( PPEH)

 

[enjolras]

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

The title being the negation of objectivity, this could be considered directing the attention. If you had your eyes opened, you're now taking a shortcut to prevent yourself to read more :)

 

[lostangel]

Some people's accounts were that they blacked out without knowing. Other's have said that they felt lightheaded. But I don't recall ever reading a report on this site of people experiencing pain. As in ''aaaaaaaah, this hurts'' or ''ooouuuueeeewwww I regret this''.

But if I was given the opportunity of taking a pill (nausea prevention) with a salty liquid and then just have to close my eyes and fall back without having to do anything else then I would.

 

[Living sucks]

Another thread where you pose a question and then do not participate in the discussion. Or answer any direct questions.

 

[autumnal]

@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.

Download links to the PPH are available from the Resource Compilation, or the latest version from here. It's an externally hosted PDF book. It has a chapter called 'Lethal Inorganic Salts' which covers SN among others.

The PPH is something I would strongly recommend as a basic prerequisite read for anyone joining the forum. If you don't read it, you're going to have significant gaps in your basic knowledge which will put you at a disadvantage in understanding basic concepts when they are elaborated on further (or disagreed with) in the forum guides, FAQs and megathreads.

 

[Notabadguy]

I was more skeptical about SN than I'm right now. PN sees it as reliable and relatively peaceful.https://mega.nz/folder/DKpXxI5b#g_JijtQz44VvFxVTFb-fnQ
You have to do it RIGHT. There is too much broscience. READ THE PPH. Take PROPANOLOL (very important, not a luxury item, Stan's guide is wrong), METO and TAGAMET.

 

[autumnal]

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).

Sorry, I consider myself fairly intelligent but personally I'm finding your argument a little too cerebral, abstract and philosophical to follow, critique or even relate back to medical principles. Clearly you are academically qualified in semiotics and related fields, while I am admittedly not.

I'm certainly not suggesting that experts should have 'total' power or validity, what I'm saying is that expert opinions are best reviewed, challenged or disproved by other experts, rather than laypeople without sufficient understanding of the concepts involved. And that isn't a dig at you, by the way. The vast majority of people here and indeed in society itself are laypeople without significant medical experience. That's why we have experts.

Beyond that, all I can really do is once again refer back to the expert opinions of the PPH authors on the relative peacefulness of the SN method, and (to my knowledge) the lack of any other expert opinions challenging their assertions. Clearly I choose to place more weight in their expert opinions than you do. I don't do so blindly, however, but for me any viable challenges to their validity would need to come from doctors or scientists rather than from a philosophical or semiotic standpoint.

 

[enjolras]

But I don't recall ever reading a report on this site of people experiencing pain. As in ''aaaaaaaah, this hurts'' or ''ooouuuueeeewwww I regret this''.

Sort of, I do.
(For the public reports)

@Moonicide (moderate-minus discomfort)

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/first-ever-sn-documentation.29734/

@Lion84 (regrets expressed, although we'll never know the exact underlying reason)

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/goodbye-dear-lion84.34672/

 

[blalost]

I'm pretty much settled on this method, it might not be entirely peaceful but I think it's the next most peaceful thing after N that is also easy to buy and use.

 

[Emily123]

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.

Drinking something with a very bad taste is not a problem for me . this is also my problem .there is no guaranty that you receive it or don't end up arrested by police and going to a mental hospital

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Sorry, I consider myself fairly intelligent but personally I'm finding your argument a little too cerebral, abstract and philosophical to follow, critique or even relate back to medical principles. Clearly you are academically qualified in semiotics and related fields, while I am admittedly not.

I'm certainly not suggesting that experts should have 'total' power or validity, what I'm saying is that expert opinions are best reviewed, challenged or disproved by other experts, rather than laypeople without sufficient understanding of the concepts involved. And that isn't a dig at you, by the way. The vast majority of people here and indeed in society itself are laypeople without significant medical experience. That's why we have experts.

Beyond that, all I can really do is once again refer back to the expert opinions of the PPH authors on the relative peacefulness of the SN method, and (to my knowledge) the lack of any other expert opinions challenging their assertions. Clearly I choose to place more weight in their expert opinions than you do. I don't do so blindly, however, but for me any viable challenges to their validity would need to come from doctors or scientists rather than from a philosophical or semiotic standpoint.

Beyond that, all I can really do is once again refer back to the expert opinions of the PPH authors on the relative peacefulness of the SN method, and (to my knowledge) the lack of any other expert opinions challenging their assertions.

People are experts about what they experience in their own bodies. You historically in your comments on this subject make no allowance for that. The expert medical opinion of peacefulness is predictive and undefined, and therefore subjective; the lived experiences of SN are concrete evidence.

You call PN an expert and regularly uplift the PPH, yet he does not list academic references to support his claims. To be a giant in medicine and academia, which is, to me, how you treat PN, or even to be accepted as valid, let alone as an authoritative expert, one must first stand on the shoulders of giants and give evidence of how they arrived at their conclusions, referring to those who learned it first, and referencing subsequent studies that support whatever claims are made. PN speaks with the authority of his MD but doesn't back up his expert advice and claims as would a legitimate researcher. He doesn't even explain how he arrives at his ratings of peacefulness, or why he recommended propanolol as a potentiator, or why he changed it from 2g to 1g. But hey, he's a doctor, and he's published a book, and has a following, so he's an expert. That does not equate legitimacy, nor define the level of expertise.

While I may not be a medical doctor, I am an experienced grad-level academic, and therefore qualified to doubt because he does not follow the most basic, standard academic and medical rules of supporting his claims. In fact, this makes him far more likely to be a snake oil salesmen or a con artist than a genuine expert, and people eat up the PPH because it was written by A DOCTOR (angels sing) and because it's difficult to obtain.

A con artist plays on confidence, and an MD warrants a lot of confidence, supported by medical hegemonic power. A con artist must be believable to gain confidence, and will use enough truth, and manipulate it, to sufficiently muddy the waters to create cognitive dissonance when one suspects there's something fishy going on. This is a psychological push to override the red flag, continue to accept what is wrong, and in fact cling even more tightly to its ostensible rightness, because most people don't have the inner fortitude to face that they've been played and instead double down (see the book Persuasion, don't take my word for it; it's researched and written by a psychological Ph.D, who, interestingly, plays his own covert psychological games with the reader through the text).

I don't know what PN's ultimate game is, I only know by his consistent actions that he's far more PT Barnum than surgeon general. If he and I agreed on something, I would move to the other side of the room from him and stand in my own power than try to fortify my position by standing with him.

__________________________________________

In my last comment, I spoke to you as a worthy and intelligent equal, as I generally do with others, capable of understanding the logic that I tried to back up with other fields that inform it. When you did not understand it, you did not ask me to clarify so that you could determine if my claims and stance had validity, but instead rejected, minimized, and negated them, returned to your position, and attempted to fortify it with an influential but unproven power -- that of PN as an expert, even multiplying that power by claiming expert opinions when there is only one (as far as I know), his. Please correct me if there are others. And as I've illustrated, he has not proven to be a genuine expert. Sure, SN works, but his claims of peacefulness are at least as subjective as the experiences of those who actually take it.

I did not make you small, @autumnal. But your response indicates to me that you responded as if you felt I had, and instead tried to make me small in return so that you could maintain your position and remain right, strong, and impervious.

In this thread, you have twice attempted to compliment me by placing me above the average SS member, but I don't think you recognize that you regularly negate members here, and I don't find that to be complimentary at all. You bring value to the forum, but it regularly comes with a price, one of negative judgment, admonishment, and negation. You treat others as if they are incapable of reasoning, interpreting their own experiences, or even being worthy to attempt suicide. This indicates to me that, although you display strength and intelligence, you can only feel this way if you make others small, though you put it in a Trojan Horse gift of common sense, which also appears to bolster your position, but is in fact one of a lack of empathy. I think that others' very need and vulnerability may in some way make you feel small, and so the response is to reject, minimize, and negate, but as long as there is a gift, it is not unkind.

I have zero intention to make you feel like shit about yourself, but rather to promote harmony, and to arrive at that desired goal, I don't know how else to say it but to directly and honestly point out that you have a tendency to treat others as if they are less than you in sense and ability to reason, and less than those with higher levels of education. Therefore, the genuine, edifying value you that you bring simultaneously knocks down. Some folks can shrug it off, some are hurt, I get irritated. I own my response, and seek in spite of it the potential value your posts may bring, but I'm not finding value right now, only rhetorical fallacies of logic and power plays to support a weak position. Honestly, the petty part of me wants to pepper this post with stop signs and infographics and bold underlining, and maybe it would actually serve you if that's how you best process things, but I think it would be hard to find any value in what I say among the smoke generated by the incendiary turds I'd be dropping in what would only be the fake interest of being understood.

I'm also tempted to prove my points above by going through your post history and quoting specific examples. I'm not going to because that's heading into attack territory. If you want clarification of these assertions, I'm willing to respectfully provide evidence and do so, not to make you small, but because there is much to value in you, and it would be great to receive that value without regular side servings of negation and/or condemnation (and the compliments you gave me came at the cost of negating others, so the serving was still there).

If one consistently contrasts and compares, then someone always loses by default, not inherent worth or value, and someone becomes more powerful by default, just because they won a comparison. I'm not less than PN because I don't have an MD, I'm not more than any other member because you approve of my approaches to SN and suicide; I am myself, and I am valid as well as fallible and prone to errors, and so are you, and every genuine, authentic, non-troll member here. That is not fact, but that is my stance.

 

[Blue Portal]

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

Take Tylenol, propranolol, and a short and long acting benzo beforehand. There problem solved.

 

[Living sucks]

The key is exactly that.. individually each case is different.. I admit most of the "successful" attempts seem to sound as tho they are not "harrowing" or "screaming in pain" but more discomfort or uncomfortable. Heart rate being most common. There are a few that stood out to me as more uncomfortable than others. Some from the "failed" anecdotes (I don't personally believe some on both sides but unnecessary to argue)
This one caught my attention and I've mentioned Lion84 previously.

I'm not going to the ER no matter what. Idk if it's working bc it was supposed to Be painless. I feel a little drunk to be honest
I feel really hot and it's hard to concentrate. I think it's working

She believed it was going to be painless. She wasn't freaking out in pain but commented so i thought I'd mention.
The whole thread is here

 

[LMLN]

Maybe not perfectly painless, but any discomfort will not last more than 20 minutes I think.

 

[muffin222]

I don't think it's totally peaceful. I don't think it needs to be. The appeal of SN as a method is that it's cheap, effective, relatively fast, and appears to be relatively pain-free for most people compared to a lot of other methods.


At the end of the day, this is death we're talking about. Why does it need to be totally peaceful? I understand not wanting to go out in excruciating pain or terror, but at the end of the day...it's suicide. You won't be around long to grapple with the discomfort, however extreme or minute it may be. You'll be gone.

It's only on these forums that I really see people painstakingly debate and analyze methods like this. Most people who ctb pick a method and just do it. Is it painful? Yeah, probably. But, they don't sit and dissect the method to death (lol...)

They pick their poison and they do it. Peaceful or not peaceful, that's really what the whole thing comes down to at the end of the day

 

[Pryras]

Peaceful is subjective and you're dying after all, there will be some discomfort with any method you choose (even if it's quick) Nembutal puts you to sleep first but who really knows what you feel when your moments away from dying.

 

[Living sucks]

I don't think it's totally peaceful. I don't think it needs to be. The appeal of SN as a method is that it's cheap, effective, relatively fast, and appears to be relatively pain-free for most people compared to a lot of other methods.


At the end of the day, this is death we're talking about. Why does it need to be totally peaceful? I understand not wanting to go out in excruciating pain or terror, but at the end of the day...it's suicide. You won't be around long to grapple with the discomfort, however extreme or minute it may be. You'll be gone.

It's only on these forums that I really see people painstakingly debate and analyze methods like this. Most people who ctb pick a method and just do it. Is it painful? Yeah, probably. But, they don't sit and dissect the method to death (lol...)

They pick their poison and they do it. Peaceful or not peaceful, that's really what the whole thing comes down to at the end of the day

I agree!! My intentions are to supply as much evidence /resources as possible to the never ending daily questions about SN.
Only directing users to the resource page or Stans guide is insufficient.. i bet 6/10 users looking for SN information will never find the success /failure page with the links to detailed attempts which I feel is as crucial to read as all the other resources, unless they're directed to them.
This way users can decide for themselves.
peace

 

[muffin222]

I agree!! My intentions are to supply as much evidence /resources as possible to the never ending daily questions about SN.
Only directing users to the resource page or Stans guide is insufficient.. i bet 6/10 users looking for SN information will never find the success /failure page with the links to detailed attempts which I feel is as crucial to read as all the other resources, unless they're directed to them.
This way users can decide for themselves.
peace

I agree. The success/failure page is essential for people to read in order to make up their own minds. I'm surprised it doesn't get posted much

 

[Quarky00]

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

As described by more than 100 accounts (after some dismissed/skeptical) -- fatal and non -- there is discomfort but not pain . There is no suffocation . There is no pain . There maybe heartbeat , nausea (or vomiting) , burning or disgusting taste, and that's pretty much it . Majority of cases did not even share all these symptoms together , so experiencing all is not common . People simply did not die in agony , twisting and screaming ... Hence this is not skepticism but fear . Which is natural and legitimate . It comes from the way we feel and feelings are there .. If it still scares you after all these accounts , choose something else

TODO: Statistics ..

 

[autumnal]

Beyond that, all I can really do is once again refer back to the expert opinions of the PPH authors on the relative peacefulness of the SN method, and (to my knowledge) the lack of any other expert opinions challenging their assertions.

People are experts about what they experience in their own bodies. You historically in your comments on this subject make no allowance for that. The expert medical opinion of peacefulness is predictive and undefined, and therefore subjective; the lived experiences of SN are concrete evidence.

You call PN an expert and regularly uplift the PPH, yet he does not list academic references to support his claims. To be a giant in medicine and academia, which is, to me, how you treat PN, or even to be accepted as valid, let alone as an authoritative expert, one must first stand on the shoulders of giants and give evidence of how they arrived at their conclusions, referring to those who learned it first, and referencing subsequent studies that support whatever claims are made. PN speaks with the authority of his MD but doesn't back up his expert advice and claims as would a legitimate researcher. He doesn't even explain how he arrives at his ratings of peacefulness, or why he recommended propanolol as a potentiator, or why he changed it from 2g to 1g. But hey, he's a doctor, and he's published a book, and has a following, so he's an expert. That does not equate legitimacy, nor define the level of expertise.

While I may not be a medical doctor, I am an experienced grad-level academic, and therefore qualified to doubt because he does not follow the most basic, standard academic and medical rules of supporting his claims. In fact, this makes him far more likely to be a snake oil salesmen or a con artist than a genuine expert, and people eat up the PPH because it was written by A DOCTOR (angels sing) and because it's difficult to obtain.

A con artist plays on confidence, and an MD warrants a lot of confidence, supported by medical hegemonic power. A con artist must be believable to gain confidence, and will use enough truth, and manipulate it, to sufficiently muddy the waters to create cognitive dissonance when one suspects there's something fishy going on. This is a psychological push to override the red flag, continue to accept what is wrong, and in fact cling even more tightly to its ostensible rightness, because most people don't have the inner fortitude to face that they've been played and instead double down (see the book Persuasion, don't take my word for it; it's researched and written by a psychological Ph.D, who, interestingly, plays his own covert psychological games with the reader through the text).

I don't know what PN's ultimate game is, I only know by his consistent actions that he's far more PT Barnum than surgeon general. If he and I agreed on something, I would move to the other side of the room from him and stand in my own power than try to fortify my position by standing with him.

__________________________________________

In my last comment, I spoke to you as a worthy and intelligent equal, as I generally do with others, capable of understanding the logic that I tried to back up with other fields that inform it. When you did not understand it, you did not ask me to clarify so that you could determine if my claims and stance had validity, but instead rejected, minimized, and negated them, returned to your position, and attempted to fortify it with an influential but unproven power -- that of PN as an expert, even multiplying that power by claiming expert opinions when there is only one (as far as I know), his. Please correct me if there are others. And as I've illustrated, he has not proven to be a genuine expert. Sure, SN works, but his claims of peacefulness are at least as subjective as the experiences of those who actually take it.

I did not make you small, @autumnal. But your response indicates to me that you responded as if you felt I had, and instead tried to make me small in return so that you could maintain your position and remain right, strong, and impervious.

In this thread, you have twice attempted to compliment me by placing me above the average SS member, but I don't think you recognize that you regularly negate members here, and I don't find that to be complimentary at all. You bring value to the forum, but it regularly comes with a price, one of negative judgment, admonishment, and negation. You treat others as if they are incapable of reasoning, interpreting their own experiences, or even being worthy to attempt suicide. This indicates to me that, although you display strength and intelligence, you can only feel this way if you make others small, though you put it in a Trojan Horse gift of common sense, which also appears to bolster your position, but is in fact one of a lack of empathy. I think that others' very need and vulnerability may in some way make you feel small, and so the response is to reject, minimize, and negate, but as long as there is a gift, it is not unkind.

I have zero intention to make you feel like shit about yourself, but rather to promote harmony, and to arrive at that desired goal, I don't know how else to say it but to directly and honestly point out that you have a tendency to treat others as if they are less than you in sense and ability to reason, and less than those with higher levels of education. Therefore, the genuine, edifying value you that you bring simultaneously knocks down. Some folks can shrug it off, some are hurt, I get irritated. I own my response, and seek in spite of it the potential value your posts may bring, but I'm not finding value right now, only rhetorical fallacies of logic and power plays to support a weak position. Honestly, the petty part of me wants to pepper this post with stop signs and infographics and bold underlining, and maybe it would actually serve you if that's how you best process things, but I think it would be hard to find any value in what I say among the smoke generated by the incendiary turds I'd be dropping in what would only be the fake interest of being understood.

I'm also tempted to prove my points above by going through your post history and quoting specific examples. I'm not going to because that's heading into attack territory. If you want clarification of these assertions, I'm willing to respectfully provide evidence and do so, not to make you small, but because there is much to value in you, and it would be great to receive that value without regular side servings of negation and/or condemnation (and the compliments you gave me came at the cost of negating others, so the serving was still there).

If one consistently contrasts and compares, then someone always loses by default, not inherent worth or value, and someone becomes more powerful by default, just because they won a comparison. I'm not less than PN because I don't have an MD, I'm not more than any other member because you approve of my approaches to SN and suicide; I am myself, and I am valid as well as fallible and prone to errors, and so are you, and every genuine, authentic, non-troll member here. That is not fact, but that is my stance.

I would have thought this was very obvious, but the reason Dr Nitschke doesn't give references is twofold. Firstly, he is usually speaking from the collective knowledge of his entire lived medical experience (from early medical degree, through clinical experience, patients treated, academic articles either read or written, conference attendance etc) and secondly, he is speaking to laypeople.

If you were to visit a doctor and ask what would help your medical condition, they would likely say 'X is the first thing we should try' or perhaps 'There are new studies suggesting Y might be as good as X for this condition, and with less side effects'. What they certainly wouldn't say is 'X is the first thing we should try (Smith et al, 1973)' or 'There are new studies (Jones, 2019a; Jones, 2019b) suggesting Y might be as good as X for this condition, and with less side effects'. You have chosen to trust your doctor based on general screening standards (they have a degree, they gained registration), perhaps their particular experience or specialization in certain areas, the recommendations of others and finally the rapport they achieve with you. Once in a consultation, you generally don't second-guess them and require them to cite or justify each piece of information which enters their head in formulating your treatment. Similarly, in his podcasts and indeed the PPH, Dr Nitschke is speaking to laypeople who place trust in his stated qualifications and expertise, rather than speaking to fellow doctors or scientists who may wish to review or critique his sources of information and for whom constant citations would easily facilitate this.

Now, this isn't to say that either with your own doctor or with Dr Nitschke, you might not hear them say something that seems incorrect based on either your common-sense or other expert opinions you have heard, nor is it to say that you should not ask them about this discrepancy. But clearly these occurrences are the exception rather than the rule.

I'm afraid that beyond pointing out that fact, this discussion has otherwise become far too meta, nebulous and indeed personal to be useful continuing from my end. Clearly we have very different views on the value of basic medical principles versus subjective personal experience, and clearly we have different views on the trustworthiness of both medical professionals in general and Dr Nitschke in particular (whom you liken to a con artist, snake oil salesman and PT Barnum, all seemingly because he does not provide citations when talking to or writing for laypeople) . On these aspects, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think the discussion has reached the point where it is of little tangible benefit to members other than ourselves anyway.

I will add for the record that I at no point felt you were making me 'feel small,' nor did I try to make you feel the same in response or retaliation. You are clearly experienced in your field, my only issue is whether your field is one with the most relevance to the tangible and important issues at hand, which are 'Is SN a relatively peaceful suicide method?' and 'From what sources of information can we reliably draw to answer that question?'.


P.S. In previous posts on the forum, I had incorrectly assumed and stated that PPH co-author Dr Fiona Stewart was a medical doctor. On researching this response today, I discovered she in fact has a PhD in health sciences, rather than being a medical doctor. I'm stating this correction here because it's as good as anywhere a place to do so, and it doesn't warrant a new thread of its own.

 

[Aap]

I'd also add to that the sample population is likely the old and very sick (exit international's criteria). Death may occur faster in that population than the sample here.

 

[Quarky00]

I'd also add to that the sample population is likely the old and very sick (exit international's criteria). Death may occur faster in that population than the sample here.

May be the opposite considering slow metabolism , digestion problems , and painkillers often common at old age (slow) ; on the other hand more frail and much harder for body to cope with metHb (fast). It could go either way ...

 

[Aap]

On net balance, the extremely ill aren't more resilient than the healthy. With reglan, the gi motility isn't an issue, and opiates greatly lower the respiratory rates and compensatory respiration. The elderly/sick are much more prone to circulatory collapse. The extremely ill will die faster than the healthy upon SN ingestion for many of the same reasons they die more often under anesthesia.

 

[Cashewmilk]

Honestly if there's an end in sight, and not many hours long, I wouldn't mind. I used to be on the search for a peaceful, painless way out. But sometimes I just want a guaranteed way out, where I will actually fucking die. I don't mind a little pain and discomfort, or even severe pain where I can sit tight and wait, I have posted about my intestinal pain before, I have been in severe excruciating pain for 4 hours just a few months ago, if I knew I was going to die and if I did die (or pass out), that would have been so so so amazing! But there was no end in sight, I almost called the ambulance because it was so painful, I can't believe the human body is capable of such pain, it really makes me not want to live at all. I've heard of pain growing up, severe horrible pain, excruciating torture, like eyeballs stabbed etc, but nothing will prepare you for actually going through these types of pain. Physical pain and the expectation or chance of it happening should be enough to make anyone want to CTB.

For me, jumping is too scary and too difficult, I couldn't do it, plus I've heard of people surviving, so that scares me even more, hanging doesn't work for me I've tried it countless times, can't get to any other method, so SN sounds promising. I would ride it out with the pain and discomfort, who cares, as long as it will kill me eventually - just don't make stupid mistakes and make sure you're not found (don't fall asleep on your remote with music on and disturb the neighbors, don't bash around things in the hotel room and disturb the neighbors LOL geeze, don't take it on a suicide watch where the police in your country will stalk you like you're an international spy, and don't go have a cigarette outside infront of other people right after taking SN, don't do it at home where you live with your parents, brother, sister and room-mate)

The key is exactly that.. individually each case is different.. I admit most of the "successful" attempts seem to sound as tho they are not "harrowing" or "screaming in pain" but more discomfort or uncomfortable. Heart rate being most common. There are a few that stood out to me as more uncomfortable than others. Some from the "failed" anecdotes (I don't personally believe some on both sides but unnecessary to argue)
This one caught my attention and I've mentioned Lion84 previously.

She believed it was going to be painless. She wasn't freaking out in pain but commented so i thought I'd mention.
The whole thread is here

There were other reports of feeling hot, and there was one who reported unbearable pain in the stomach. That sounds like my excruciating IBS diarrheal attacks I get. Not pretty, it's the most horrific pain I've ever felt and I've been through severe heroin withdrawal, this is worse, I screamed a lot. I hope SN isn't that painful... the hot flash and vomiting is one of my most painful experiences, most uncomfortable feelings... I don't know what to think but I'm sure it affects everyone differently.

 

[stupidldiot]

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.

the thing is, if it worked then the people testing it wouldn't be reporting anything back. if theres one thing ive learned about hanging is that for the most part its full suspension or not at all. same with charcoal, i used to think that was my no1 option but then seeing the sheer number of things that can go wrong seeems like the crappiest option now.

 

[tym]

I disagree with the whole if you wonder about SN then your not ready, or more or less to that effect. I think its the fear of it failing, as well as who wants to sit around waiting for whatever to happen?? Some may be ok with that, others are more of a "i want a sure thing" and want it quick. If I did not live in such a flat state, jumping would be my first option. Now I am pretty sure I am gonna go with option two, which is nite nite. With making sure its in a hotel, motel, AND I will check in for two days. Do it not long after, should do the trick.

If for some reason that fails or what not, drowning would be my second option.

 

[deleted]

I watched 40 minutes of a person after drinking SN and I can assure you that it is peaceful, I am also skeptical and had to see it with my own eyes to confirm that it is peaceful but there is discomfort

 

[Shu]

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!

@sealbabies propranolol is the beta blocker.

 

[its-about-time]

I think the PPH is kinda weird and pretends several methods are more "peaceful and painless" than they really are. I mean, SN got a score of 7/10, that's high sure but it's still a C grade and that's not very good in my book. The PPH is great for method specifics and instructions but I don't trust it one bit for their peaceful rating scale.

I anticipate a lot of nausea and some burning pain. I've read through many failed attempts and it's pretty common. We're basically poisoning ourselves. We aren't going to just feel nothing. But if the nausea and pain are manageable, which is the impression I get, then I don't think it's going to be so terrible.

 

[Judy Garland]

I think the PPH is kinda weird and pretends several methods are more "peaceful and painless" than they really are. I mean, SN got a score of 7/10, that's high sure but it's still a C grade and that's not very good in my book. The PPH is great for method specifics and instructions but I don't trust it one bit for their peaceful rating scale.

I anticipate a lot of nausea and some burning pain. I've read through many failed attempts and it's pretty common. We're basically poisoning ourselves. We aren't going to just feel nothing. But if the nausea and pain are manageable, which is the impression I get, then I don't think it's going to be so terrible.

I found this literature of attempts that weres successful. Scroll until you get to the stories. Some people didn't vomit at all, and it seems a lot of people felt rather ok.

SS – Fatal Sodium Nitrite (SN / NaNO2) Attempts: Member Methods & Experiences

docs.google.com