Method Are there more Method Scores?

[daley]

Recently I posted a thread about the methods scores in the Peacefull Pill Handbook.

Another source for method scores is given in the LTA calculator .
That cites the paper: Clinton Ernest Rhyne and Donald I. Templer and Lillian G. Brown and Noel B. Peters, "Dimensions of Suicide: Perceptions of Lethality, Time and Agony", In Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol. 25(3), 1995.

Do you know of any more tables that score methods in a systematic manner?

 

[Forever Sleep]

Members here have compiled their own tables:

Peaceful Suicide Methods

Peaceful Suicide Methods Method Peaceful Reliability Availability Speed SI* Nembutal 100 % 100 % NOT AVAILABLE 3 - 5 min 0 Carfentanyl 100 % 100 % street < 10 sec 0 Fentanyl 100 % 100 % street < 30 sec 0 Heroine 100 % 100 % street < 1 min 0 Nitrogen 100 % 100 % legality available 10...

sanctioned-suicide.net

 

[Intoxicated]

All CTB score tables I've seen prove to be naive and pretty useless if you consider them critically. The common flaws in those ratings are:

1. No certain protocols are defined for the assessed methods.

You can't assess abstract methods adequately. It's nearly the same as scoring suicide in general. How would you react if someone told you that lethality of a suicide attempt is 10%, the agony level is 50% and time to death is 1 hour (without mentioning any details on how the attempt is done). This would sound ridiculously, right? Your first thought would probably be "such things depend on the method actually".

When you take a closer look at the "methods" presented in those score tables and if you're knowledgeable enough, you can notice that each of them can be done with a great variety of protocols that may give very different outcomes.

2. When talking about agony, the authors do not clearly distinguish the intensity of discomfort and its duration.

Ask yourself, what is worse: experiencing 75%-intense discomfort for 1 second or experiencing 25%-intense discomfort for 1 hour/day/month/year? Different people can prefer different ratios between intensity and duration, so all integral agony scores are inherently highly biased.

And what is 100% agony on the scale that doesn't have an upper bound for the duration at all? Is 100%-intense pain experienced during 5 seconds presumed to be equivalent to 100%-intense pain experienced during 5 minutes, 5 hours, or 5 days?

This page https://archive.ashspace.org/ashbusstop.org/lta_calc.html tries to take time into consideration, but the suggested method is just nonsensical - it's based on the time to death rather than the duration of conscious state. The numbers presented as time to death also rise lots of questions. According to the site, death from "shotgun to head" takes 1.7 minutes. Are they serious? If the shotgun is powerful enough and the shot is done correctly, you die in less than 0.1 seconds.

3. The notion of "peacefulness" is rather vague. In general, people may combine several different aspects of CTB in this parameter:

- intensity and duration of physical discomfort,
- probable intensity and duration of anxiety or other mental discomfort induced by using the CTB protocol,
- whether the protocol is associated with gore or violence,
- how much the protocol is prone to causing inconveniences, distress, or risks to health/life for other people.

Trying to address so many different things in a single common score inevitably leads to imposing some personal taste, preferences, and bias to others. Attempts to evaluate an overall integer score for a method based on reliability, discomfort, availability, etc doesn't look smart either. It's just playing with numbers, which doesn't have anything common with real science. You can safely multiply the results of such calculations by the unit imaginary number (i) - at least, their practical usefulness would be better reflected then.

 

[daley]

1. No certain protocols are defined for the assessed methods.

You can't assess abstract methods adequately. It's nearly the same as scoring suicide in general. How would you react if someone told you that lethality of a suicide attempt is 10%, the agony level is 50% and time to death is 1 hour (without mentioning any details on how the attempt is done). This would sound ridiculously, right? Your first thought would probably be "such things depend on the method actually".

When you take a closer look at the "methods" presented in those score tables and if you're knowledgeable enough, you can notice that each of them can be done with a great variety of protocols that may give very different outcomes.

This is certainly a problem. But at least for the PPH data this is not true, because they are not scoring abstract methods.
They are scoring methods assuming you carry them out according to the protocol described in their book.

Your criticism applies more to the LTA calculator. Here, the scores are made by pathologists, and I
assume they score based on the cases they see - and the exact method can vary considerably given
any abstract description.

The notion of "peacefulness" is rather vague. In general, people may combine several different aspects of CTB in this parameter:

- intensity and duration of physical discomfort,
- probable intensity of anxiety or other mental discomfort induced by using the CTB protocol,
- whether the protocol is associated with gore or violence,
- how much the protocol is prone to causing inconveniences, distress, or risks to health/life for other people.

I would like the PPH to explain more about the precise meaning of each criteria. I didn't find this though.
I was reading the "Essential" book which is shorter than the previous books they published.
Perhaps they have a more detailed explanation elsewhere.

However, I would assume that the "peacefulness" does not include duration.
Also I think none of the methods in the PPH includes gore or violence, so this isn't an issue for them.
As for a method causing distress/risk to other people, they have a separate criteria called "Safety to Others" which
include that. So I would assume that "Peacefulness" does not include that at all.

 

[Intoxicated]

But at least for the PPH data this is not true, because they are not scoring abstract methods.
They are scoring methods assuming you carry them out according to the protocol described in their book.

I've checked PPH 2022, it enumerates different ways to produce CO and doesn't explicitly mention which protocol or set of protocols is implied in the "Carbon Monoxide & Hydrogen Sulphide" score table. The authors also forgot to mention permissible concentrations of hydrochloric acid for producing H2S, permissible range of volumes of the "small confined space", and the need in preventing ventilation for a reliable CTB.

Your criticism applies more to the LTA calculator. Here, the scores are made by pathologists, and I
assume they score based on the cases they see

Or that may be just a fake. We can't check if any real pathologists were involved.

However, I would assume that the "peacefulness" does not include duration.
Also I think none of the methods in the PPH includes gore or violence, so this isn't an issue for them.
As for a method causing distress/risk to other people, they have a separate criteria called "Safety to Others" which
include that. So I would assume that "Peacefulness" does not include that at all.

Well, then I don't understand how they rated "peacefulness" of poisoning with sodium nitrite much higher than that of poisoning with hydrogen sulfide. H2S causes unconsciousness much faster; at high concentrations it abolishes the sense of unpleasant smell very quickly (salty nitrite is also not a sugar cake) and doesn't induce any significant discomfort before loss of consciousness and death occur. H2S should be way better or not worse than NaNO2 by all parameters except safety for others and undetectability.

 

[L'absent]

I've checked PPH 2022, it enumerates different ways to produce CO and doesn't explicitly mention which protocol or set of protocols is implied in the "Carbon Monoxide & Hydrogen Sulphide" score table. The authors also forgot to mention permissible concentrations of hydrochloric acid for producing H2S, permissible range of volumes of the "small confined space", and the need in preventing ventilation for a reliable CTB.

Or that may be just a fake. We can't check if any real pathologists were involved.

Well, then I don't understand how they rated "peacefulness" of poisoning with sodium nitrite much higher than that of poisoning with hydrogen sulfide. H2S causes unconsciousness much faster; at high concentrations it abolishes the sense of unpleasant smell very quickly (salty nitrite is also not a sugar cake) and doesn't induce any significant discomfort before loss of consciousness and death occur. H2S should be way better or not worse than NaNO2 by all parameters except safety for others and undetectability.

So do you agree that H2S is very fast, painless and 100% lethal?

 

[daley]

Or that may be just a fake. We can't check if any real pathologists were involved.

That just sounds like something an argumentative AI would say :


You complained about the scoring being non-scientific, but then even when relying on a scientific article, you don't believe it.
Do you have a reason for not believing it? Is it published in a shitty journal?

 

[Intoxicated]

So do you agree that H2S is very fast, painless and 100% lethal?

It's very fast, painless and nearly 100% lethal. I gonna use it if asphyxiation with N2O fails.

You complained about the scoring being non-scientific, but then even when relying on a scientific article, you don't believe it.
Do you have a reason for not believing it? Is it published in a shitty journal?

Is it a scientific article? )) It doesn't look like related to science. Real scientific measurements are based on fully determined subject and reasonable criteria of how measurement should be done rather than polls like "hey guys, how do you rate this or that?" )))