‘It’ll traumatise X, X and X’ is an overrated way to discourage someone from a method

[burninghill]

This might be a selfish take but… I think it's incredibly ironic the times in which this is brought up.
If you mention dying to a train suicide, it's bound to appear at least once in the comments. Something about traumatising the driver and or the passengers.

But why not mention this so often when people mention falling from heights? You could land in a busy street or ontop of somebody. What about that cashier who sold you the rope to hang yourself? Or the pharmacist who sold you the drugs? I suppose it works slightly differently because not only can the conductor interpret themselves as directly responsible, but they also will see you die. Regardless, I don't think that people should be shamed for using trains to die.

Any method is bound to traumatise somebody, whether that's your family, paramedics (which, despite being paid, are still affected by their jobs!), literally any bystanders. The people around you don't even have to see your dead body (or your death) to become traumatised by your suicide.

Is there a threshold for what's considered too traumatising to be an ethical method?

Finally, I think it's a bit inconsiderate. When I've been in the deepest depths of my suicidality, not once did I think of who would be affected by it. I didn't care, and if I was going to think of anybody then the last person it would be would be the conductor of a train or a pedestrian. Hell I'd think of my dog first.
Asking a suicidal person to consider the feelings of those around them more than their own is unfair to me. Let them die the death they choose and let them not rule out methods because of the way it impacts others.

TL;DR: not only do I think this is a bit of a silly and inconsiderate way to discourage someone from a specific method of suicide, it's also disproportionately mentioned in regards to train suicides compared to other methods that could have arguably equal impact

 

[never mind me]

I generally agree, but I think there are limits. For example I would consider it unethical, if you choose a method that actually physically harms someone or puts them in danger like provoking a car crash.
Personally I think I would also feel bad about doing it in someone else's home or even in my own home, if I happen to live with someone I care about. But I wouldn't judge anyone else for doing it somewhere where people close to them find them, because it may very well be the only feasible way for ctb somebody has.

 

[SergantWallbridge]

If the morality of suicide is conditional exclusively/primarily on the level of trauma it inflicts upon others I am pretty sure one can min/max that shit.

It is generally considered more traumatic to see a cold body of someone young, aestetically pleasing and of social/racial group one empathises with. Some obvious choices one can make with regards to some features of their appearance/location of the suicide naturally follow from that...

 

[rembleeds]

I understand both sides of the argument, but my thoughts lie closer to the middle.

If you have two good options, where one is likely to traumatize someone (excluding EMS) and the other is unlikely to traumatize someone, and both options have equal likelihood of death, choosing the one that's less likely to cause trauma is more ethical.

If someone only has the option of a method that causes trauma to another person or the method is more likely to cause death, so be it.

It depends on what's avaliable imo.

 

[burninghill]

I understand both sides of the argument, but my thoughts lie closer to the middle.

If you have two good options, where one is likely to traumatize someone (excluding EMS) and the other is unlikely to traumatize someone, and both options have equal likelihood of death, choosing the one that's less likely to cause trauma is more ethical.

If someone only has the option of a method that causes trauma to another person or the method is more likely to cause death, so be it.

It depends on what's avaliable imo.

Genuine question, please don't think I'm trying to antagonise you in any way.

If I have two methods, one is 'likely to traumatise someone' and one isn't, both equal likelihood of death as you say, if my preference is the traumatic one, do you think I should settle for the less traumatic one for the sake of those around me, or do you think that I should put my comfort first?

I can't find a way to word this in a way that doesn't make it seem to default in favour of the latter option, forgive me.

I generally agree, but I think there are limits. For example I would consider it unethical, if you choose a method that actually physically harms someone or puts them in danger like provoking a car crash.
Personally I think I would also feel bad about doing it in someone else's home or even in my own home, if I happen to live with someone I care about. But I wouldn't judge anyone else for doing it somewhere where people close to them find them, because it may very well be the only feasible way for ctb somebody has.

I would also draw the limit at the potential of physically harming another person, 100%.

Killing yourself in someone else's home is just a crazy thought, if it has to be done it has to be done but I imagine there are few cases where this is the only option (thankfully).