non-sterile veterinary N: methodology?

[bov]

The PPhb and groups like Final Exit encourage oral ingestion of N for legal reasons (the patient has to administer it herself).

But if you have liquid N, would you inject it since that's how animals are put down?

 

[alexit]

you have non-sterile liquid N? I could be wrong but isn't the liquid kind supposed to be sterile?

 

[bov]

In particular, see bottom paragraph

 

[alexit]

Go figure. Good to know. I want to investigate though why they wouldn't keep a solution sterile.

 

[bov]

"Non-sterile compounding involves creating a medication in a clean environment but does not require the environment to be completely free from all microorganisms. This type of compounding is used for medications that are meant to be taken orally"

 

[Aap]

How would you inject it?

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

The PPhb and groups like Final Exit encourage oral ingestion of N for legal reasons (the patient has to administer it herself).

But if you have liquid N, would you inject it since that's how animals are put down?

It's not for legal reasons. One can lose consciousness before reaching the fatal dose. They either have to drink it or set up some kind of self-administration frame so that it would keep going.

 

[checkouttime]

How would you inject it?

You would have to do it IV

I've seen something about this method somewhere, but can't remember exactly

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Also, the methodology is sterile. Once the bottle is opened and starts getting cloudy, the composition of the N has changed.

 

[bov]

Also, the methodology is sterile. Once the bottle is opened and starts getting cloudy, the composition of the N has changed.

The substance is dyed and viscous already; hopefully one would be able to tell whether it's "cloudy" or not

 

[Aap]

That's not necessarily true.

 

[bov]

That's not necessarily true.

That it's dyed and viscous?

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Also, the methodology is sterile.

Just read the screenshot, didn't realize there was such a thing as non-sterile N.

The substance is dyed and viscous already; hopefully one would be able to tell whether it's "cloudy" or not

Other members have talked about their N being cloudy after having opened. But maybe it wasn't Dolethal, which is dyed. Still, one can tell if wine is cloudy, but it's not viscous. *shrug*

 

[Aap]

I'm not fully following the what the point of this thread is. Yes, the vet solutions can be given via IV or orally. It generally shouldn't be attempted via IV, as extremely few who post here have adequate experience or access to the proper equipment to make it work. I was commenting that simply because it was cloudy doesn't necessarily mean it has changed composition or is bad. Viscous must be the word of the day, as it keeps popping up in this and other threads.

 

[Deleted member 4993]

Flocculation will occur when liquid N goes bad, small particles / sediment will be easily visible

 

[montana007]

Not to butt in here unnecessarily but I was just passing through and noticed this thread.

Don't get too excited about that last paragraph in the scan.

I assume that somewhere around here the bioavailability of Pentobarbitone Sodium, depending on route of administration, is discussed not to mention the LD50 of the same and other factors e.g. the body mass of the individual?

All I'm saying is that it may not be as simple as stated i.e. "30ml taken orally is lethal". Lethal to what (to which animal or species)? Seems like a very sweeping and general statement to be making.

Take a look at this document for starters and for the sake of interest and you'll see what I'm getting at:

https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/sharedassets/public/plants_and_animals/wec-euthanasia-of-research-animals-policy-gen.pdf

Not saying it will not work. Just make sure you do your homework before simply assuming that something is going to serve your intended purpose because, and as I've said before, failure could lead to an even worse set of personal circumstances (even although I'm sure most will be of the opinion that nothing can get worse than it is). And not to mention that in the case with N: failure could result in permanent damage to certain organs as well. Unfortunately (well my opinion anyway): this is either a job done well or not to be attempted at all so be sure of what you're doing.

 

[alexit]

Not to butt in here unnecessarily but I was just passing through and noticed this thread.

Don't get too excited about that last paragraph in the scan.

I assume that somewhere around here the bioavailability of Pentobarbitone Sodium, depending on route of administration, is discussed not to mention the LD50 of the same and other factors e.g. the body mass of the individual?

All I'm saying is that it may not be as simple as stated i.e. "30ml taken orally is lethal". Lethal to what (to which animal or species)? Seems like a very sweeping and general statement to be making.

Take a look at this document for starters and for the sake of interest and you'll see what I'm getting at:

https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/sharedassets/public/plants_and_animals/wec-euthanasia-of-research-animals-policy-gen.pdf

Not saying it will not work. Just make sure you do your homework before simply assuming that something is going to serve your intended purpose because, and as I've said before, failure could lead to an even worse set of personal circumstances (even although I'm sure most will be of the opinion that nothing can get worse than it is). And not to mention that in the case with N: failure could result in permanent damage to certain organs as well. Unfortunately (well my opinion anyway): this is either a job done well or not to be attempted at all so be sure of what you're doing.

Thank you for mentioning this. LD50 is something people need to understand. mg/kg calculation believed to be able to kill 50% of a population, animal or human. It often varies by subject. It is a derived calculation since people aren't killed to arrive at it. By comparison, TDLO is the lowest dose known to cause toxicity. Toxicity is not necessarily death.

Here is a good PDF on terms https://ehs.unl.edu/documents/tox_exposure_guidelines.pdf

I know people want a simple method, and let me be clear, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO QUICK, EFFECTIVE, PAINLESS AND SIMPLE (what I call QEPS) METHODS. THE RIGHT TO DIE IS A HUMAN RIGHT. Unfortunately, it is not a universally-recognised human right, so we're left with having to research things first and well.

 

[Aap]

What are you talking about? The lethality of pentobarbital in humans is well known. You are aware of multiple cases where people have consumed 9+ grams of pentobarbital with or without phenytoin and lived?

 

[checkouttime]

What are you talking about? The lethality of pentobarbital in humans is well known. You are aware of multiple cases where people have consumed 9+ grams of pentobarbital with or without phenytoin and lived?

ermmm none!!!!!! in the assisted suicide clinics from what i read at least!!!

I'm pretty sure the 6g for the average human is overkill,so i imagine the 9gm is massive overkill!!!!
I can't imagine the person who devised the idea, just decided to make the amount "just enough"

I know it isn't SN but the amount of that you need to actually absorb to CTB is massively different to what you ingest.

Isn't it something like 3g(can be lethal)....25g you drink????

So yes the LD50 is important, thats why i'm pretty sure the methods are way above this amount. They seem to be worked out on the average person, so people then have to adjust. hence why "A" was giving 2 bottles of the original "N" he had 12g

 

[Aap]

This entire thread is bizarre. It starts by asking if injectable N can be taken orally or injected, devolves into a weird discussion about sterility, viscosity, and floculation, and then a few word salad posts about whether a given dose is actually lethal/LD50. I feel like I'm having a stroke reading it.

 

[bov]

I wasn't asking if it *can* be injected in the abstract but whether you *would.*

But I agree, this has been a wild ride.

 

[montana007]

Hey "Tiger"

This entire thread is bizarre. It starts by asking if injectable N can be taken orally or injected, devolves into a weird discussion about sterility, viscosity, and floculation, and then a few word salad posts about whether a given dose is actually lethal/LD50. I feel like I'm having a stroke reading it.

Seems you're about a 9 on the tension scale (of 10). Calm.

Why do you find this thread so bizarre?

To begin with: your statement of "It starts by asking if injectable N can be taken orally or injected" is totally wrong. That's nowhere near what the OP was asking.

Then we move on to the title of the thread and the scanned page which the OP posted re: non-sterile N for veterinary use and the clear and apparent statement of fact in the document that "30ml taken orally is lethal". Really? You sure about that? Bearing in mind that the said document refers to the euthanasia of animals (and while I believe we're all animals we're certainly not all equally created animals). So what may be a lethal dose for a dog, for example, may, or may not be, a lethal dose for a human.

Prime example of the above (although off topic but demonstrates my point very clearly): did you know that dogs are at least 10x more sensitive to THC (the marijuana psychoactive) because they have many many more cannabinoid receptors than humans.

In addition: those are two very specific products detailed in the scanned document and made by Virbac in Australia. Note the different concentrations between the two and that's just to begin with. Not to mention the fact that I can just see somebody coming across a thread like this, from another country, and somehow sourcing "some of that stuff they use to euthanize dogs" from wherever they can e.g. a friend who may be an unethical vet or off the street or from the Internet, ending up with a totally different product name but which SUPPOSEDLY does the same thing, but could very well have a totally different concentration of N, and end up botching a suicide attempt and possibly ending up with permanent organ damage and then having to live with that as well.

Not that I feel I have to make my point even clearer but read my posts on one of these Fentanyl threads floating around. People going around thinking they're going to swallow a Fentanyl patch and die peacefully. Not going to happen.

So in my humble opinion: there's nothing at all bizarre about this thread. It's the sharing of knowledge that has been well researched by people (like me if I may say so) that's important and that could make the difference between success and a total botched attempt with unintended and very sad consequences for certain individuals.

And by the way: N CAN go "bad". So imagine some poor soul spending a fortune on some expired N, making their preparations or whatever, assuming all is in order, and waking up a day later feeling as sick as anything and then having to deal emotionally with a botched attempt on top of everything else (through no fault of their own). And to to mention probably being ripped blind (financially) by some disgusting human being on the Internet selling N at ridiculous prices to make a profit out of people this desperate (you'd be surprised what veterinary N ACTUALLY costs).

And no offense to anyone who may be a rabid supporter of the likes of Exit International and the PPHB. While I applaud Ms. Stewart and HRH Dr. Nitschke for their efforts in promoting the right-to-die and a peaceful death: I find it an affront that people are charged for the privilege of belonging to the organization and having access to the information. Seems to me it hasn't occurred to them that in many cases: lack of finances or loss of income is the very reason for a person wanting to commit suicide. And not to mention the fact that the PPHB has had so many revisions over the years that I'm not sure I'd trust a lot of that information especially when it comes to the use of pharmaceuticals or chemicals. I think the "ideal" dose for SN, for example, as stipulated in the PPHB, has been revised at least three times over the years that I know of as but one example.

I guess the point of all of this is really this: KNOW what you're doing before you do it. Unless it's merely a cry for help: this, as I've said before, is either a job done proper or not attempted at all.

 

[bov]

Hey "Tiger"

Seems you're about a 9 on the tension scale (of 10). Calm.

Why do you find this thread so bizarre?

To begin with: your statement of "It starts by asking if injectable N can be taken orally or injected" is totally wrong. That's nowhere near what the OP was asking.

Then we move on to the title of the thread and the scanned page which the OP posted re: non-sterile N for veterinary use and the clear and apparent statement of fact in the document that "30ml taken orally is lethal". Really? You sure about that? Bearing in mind that the said document refers to the euthanasia of animals (and while I believe we're all animals we're certainly not all equally created animals). So what may be a lethal dose for a dog, for example, may, or may not be, a lethal dose for a human.

Prime example of the above (although off topic but demonstrates my point very clearly): did you know that dogs are at least 10x more sensitive to THC (the marijuana psychoactive) because they have many many more cannabinoid receptors than humans.

In addition: those are two very specific products detailed in the scanned document and made by Virbac in Australia. Note the different concentrations between the two and that's just to begin with. Not to mention the fact that I can just see somebody coming across a thread like this, from another country, and somehow sourcing "some of that stuff they use to euthanize dogs" from wherever they can e.g. a friend who may be an unethical vet or off the street or from the Internet, ending up with a totally different product name but which SUPPOSEDLY does the same thing, but could very well have a totally different concentration of N, and end up botching a suicide attempt and possibly ending up with permanent organ damage and then having to live with that as well.

Not that I feel I have to make my point even clearer but read my posts on one of these Fentanyl threads floating around. People going around thinking they're going to swallow a Fentanyl patch and die peacefully. Not going to happen.

So in my humble opinion: there's nothing at all bizarre about this thread. It's the sharing of knowledge that has been well researched by people (like me if I may say so) that's important and that could make the difference between success and a total botched attempt with unintended and very sad consequences for certain individuals.

And by the way: N CAN go "bad". So imagine some poor soul spending a fortune on some expired N, making their preparations or whatever, assuming all is in order, and waking up a day later feeling as sick as anything and then having to deal emotionally with a botched attempt on top of everything else (through no fault of their own). And to to mention probably being ripped blind (financially) by some disgusting human being on the Internet selling N at ridiculous prices to make a profit out of people this desperate (you'd be surprised what veterinary N ACTUALLY costs).

And no offense to anyone who may be a rabid supporter of the likes of Exit International and the PPHB. While I applaud Ms. Stewart and HRH Dr. Nitschke for their efforts in promoting the right-to-die and a peaceful death: I find it an affront that people are charged for the privilege of belonging to the organization and having access to the information. Seems to me it hasn't occurred to them that in many cases: lack of finances or loss of income is the very reason for a person wanting to commit suicide. And not to mention the fact that the PPHB has had so many revisions over the years that I'm not sure I'd trust a lot of that information especially when it comes to the use of pharmaceuticals or chemicals. I think the "ideal" dose for SN, for example, as stipulated in the PPHB, has been revised at least three times over the years that I know of as but one example.

I guess the point of all of this is really this: KNOW what you're doing before you do it. Unless it's merely a cry for help: this, as I've said before, is either a job done proper or not attempted at all.

Hi Dalpat,

Just want to clarify: the scan is from the PPHB, so it is making a claim about what's lethal to human beings. That said, for many of the reasons you listed, N is beginning to sound too dicey to me. My intended method now is Nitrogen asphyxiation. You seem knowledgeable; if you have any tips please PM me.

 

[montana007]

Hello.

Hi Dalpat,

Just want to clarify: the scan is from the PPHB, so it is making a claim about what's lethal to human beings. That said, for many of the reasons you listed, N is beginning to sound too dicey to me. My intended method now is Nitrogen asphyxiation. You seem knowledgeable; if you have any tips please PM me.

Thanks for clarifying that. I would never have known. Still. I stand by what I've said. Matter of fact: there's a brand spanking new thread around here where somebody has detailed their failure with N (although to be fair: there are quite a few unknowns as to the reason for failure and I'm not going to dredge up the person's experience as she seems to be doing fine and better now after her failed attempt).

N is supposed to be the "Gold Standard" (I've seen it referred to as that many times) and from what I know and have read: I'd have to agree with that. I mean to say: it'd be no different from going under general anesthetic but just simply never waking up again. Sounds pretty ideal to me. There just seems to be a lot of room for error if not sourced from a reliable source (and the only source I'd deem reliable is from a vet and in proper sealed containers and that's no simple operation). And if it were me: I'd ingest double whatever was recommended (overkill or not is beside to point and irrelevant for the intended purpose here let's face it).

And look: maybe I owe some people and apology for going over the top and obviously making assumptions (something which really is unforgivable on a site such as this). So if I've upset anybody: I do apologize. My main point REALLY is JUST BE SURE and do your due diligence if you're hell bent (no pun intended) on leaving this planet quickly, painlessly, and peacefully. That's all. Nothing more and nothing less to be taken from my posts. It's easy to be wrong. Give you another example: that product is not available here but obviously there are similar products available. Sometime last year I did the calculations necessary. And the product available here would require no less than 100ml (and 200ml to be on the safe side) for the individual concerned (and which needless to say they were not able to source anyway). Point is: without being very sure of things like concentrations of active ingredients etc. of particular products that someone may only have access to then it's impossible to be sure that your attempt is going to be successful. So fair enough. The information that you posted actually comes from the PPHB so therefore there's probably no problem with that last statement BUT they are referring to THAT PARTICULAR manufacturer and make of product. And that's what caught my attention so figured it'd be the right thing to do just to pop in and lay out some facts and considerations.

So knowing what I know NOW (that you've told me where that article came from): I probably then agree with the statement made i.e. 30ml BUT with the proviso that it is 30ml of THAT product and not another unknown or substituted product or different brand.

I don't mind sending you a PM to say hello and "how are you today" but I for sure have no useful tips on that one. The "science" of the procedure seems accurate. But I don't know so much about these home made "exit bags". There's plenty of information out there about people who have failed with this too e.g. ran out of gas, pipe came out of the bag, there was oxygen in the bag, the list goes on. But let me say categorically: I'm no expert at all. I've just spent a good year of my life "researching" certain things and it just so happens that suicide and the reasons therefore, consequences thereof, and mechanics thereof, is one of them (for whatever my reasons may be). And I do have a very good (in my opinion obviously) understanding of certain pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs hence my popping in here where it seems relevant. My personal feelings about the PPHB & Co. aside: they've spent years researching the subject matter so who am I to argue. I would imagine that most all of what they recommend does in fact do the job (the odd revision here and there aside) bearing in mind that this is but one forum on the Internet where, admirably, discussions of this nature are allowed and without somebody trying to score a buck out of other people's misery. What I'm saying is that the actual success rate of what they recommend is probably EXTREMELY high i.e. we're just never going to know or hear about every suicide here. Point is: don't let me put you off what they're saying or what they're recommending etc. I just know that when it comes to pharmaceuticals and drugs (of any type) there are MANY general misconceptions and a lot of inaccurate information all over the Internet. Just trying to help where I am confident that I can is all.