Discussion Regarding CTB and collateral damage

[TAW122]

On the topic of collateral damage, it isn't a new topic and there has been different stances by various people (some being ok with it while the majority of people being against it). From time to time, I have stated my two cents on it. However, in this thread, I will give my official, true stance regarding collateral damage with respect to CTBs.

TAW122's stance regarding collateral damage:
Personally, I do NOT endorse methods that will actively involve others' in one's own death, not (primarily) because of unwilling participants becoming involved or it being unfair to them, but because it leaves CTB onto another person's control and less of one's own control. Of course, though, this isn't to say that I do not consider the impact of involving others in one's own CTB (I do, but it would be secondary in relation to success). Ideally, one will do whatever one can to avoid such a circumstance, and people with more options should generally opt for more reliable, yet peaceful means to CTB, or at least do what one can do to avoid collateral damage. For example, if one had access to SN, N, an inert gas, or peaceful pill, for instance, it would be better to do that than to resort to violent means that would cause others (unwilling participants and 3rd parties) damage and harm. However, if they don't have that, then they would choose the next most reliable, yet minimal damaging method (SIGSW (self-inflicted gunshot wound), hanging (whether partial or full), jumping at an adequate height onto hard surface, blunt force trauma (from crashing a vehicle into a solid object instead of another vehicle), etc.).

In the event that someone was desperate enough to go with a method that causes collateral damage, I wouldn't approve nor endorse it, but I would understand and empathize with them because that may be the only reliable means that said person(s) has to CTB as the their predicaments may only allow that very method(s). I consider this to be the consequence of prohibition of peaceful CTB methods, the aggressive preventionist campaigns against CTB (e.g. CTB is never an option, live at ALL costs regardless of predicament, violating personal autonomy in the name of safety and preserving life, etc.) as that forces people who wish to CTB to resort to more barbaric and violent methods to return to non-sentience (death). (Note: This is not to encourage nor endorse methods that cause collateral damage, but to point out the causes that led to people resorting to such means when they lack 'better' options.) Furthermore, with the additional burden of having to hide one's intention and be covert with one's own method, planning, and execution (not to mention the chances of failure and battling one's own survival instinct), it only compounds the difficulty of CTB'ing, let alone a peaceful exit. Personally, if I found myself limited with options, I would probably do the same to avoid failing (means to an end) and partly because I'm cynical, I view it as the failing of the prohibitionist society and government that denies it's citizens peaceful, reliable ways to CTB and not have to cause collateral damage. Mind you though, I would still do what I can to avoid causing damage when possible (e.g. if one chose to jump, one would jump in a place/time where there is least likely to be someone below; if one was to crash a large vehicle, one would opt for a hard barrier rather than a head on collision with another large vehicle with someone behind the wheel; one would try to causing a hazard as much as possible if using dangerous gases to CTB (Cyanide, Hydrogen, etc.)) and minimize the impact as much as I can.

I know that this may be controversial and not everyone will be on the same page, but my stance is rooted in reality, practicality, with the focus on maximizing the odds of a successful attempt (after all, CTB'ing is the hardest decision that one can make, notwithstanding also avoiding interference and the skill it takes to execute it.), and also ensuring one is able to go through with the least amount of discomfort, suffering (either brutal and violent but quick and "relatively" painless, or quick and peaceful, etc.).

 

[FuneralCry]

Sometimes even on here I read about people telling other people to avoid methods like the train because of it's affect on others, but the reality is that some people have no other option and the fact that people have to resort to such brutal methods just shows what a horrific place this world really is.

It certainly disgusts me how people are restricted access to more painless and reliable methods, having the option of legalised euthanasia would solve this issue and will mean that others won't be upset by potentially finding a body/witnessing a suicide, or even end up being harmed in some way as the person ctb had limited method options. I just think the fact that this society is so anti suicide means that there will inevitably be at least some collateral damage.

 

[Octavia]

Sometimes collateral damage is inevitable, the important thing is to minimalise it as much as possible.

 

[FireWalkWithMe]

I think the idea is probably to avoid and/or limit collateral damage where practicable to do so AND to give a fair opinion on that when asked about the merits of a particular method. After all, when people ask they are inviting opinion.

Some forms are so egregious that they should be categorically avoided. Stuff like not checking where you're jumping...

The mental toll on bypassers or a train driver should be considered in my opinion, and if there are options available that mean you can pass on out of the sight of others they probably should be strongly considered.

But yes, I don't think it's about lecturing people that consider jumping in front of a train. Clearly their situation is bad enough that this is not necessary. It's just bringing to their attention all of the ramifications because often people are not thinking straight.

 

[TAW122]

Sometimes even on here I read about people telling other people to avoid methods like the train because of it's affect on others, but the reality is that some people have no other option and the fact that people have to resort to such brutal methods just shows what a horrific place this world really is.

It certainly disgusts me how people are restricted access to more painless and reliable methods, having the option of legalised euthanasia would solve this issue and will mean that others won't be upset by potentially finding a body/witnessing a suicide, or even end up being harmed in some way as the person ctb had limited method options. I just think the fact that this society is so anti suicide means that there will inevitably be at least some collateral damage.

This is true, and sadly because many (majority) of prolifers refuse to accept CTB as a rational option to the madness of this world, this existence, we get people who have to 'secretly' CTB with many risks of failure, and what not. It's just similar to the prohibition of alcohol in the early 20th century, where it didn't stop people from drinking alcohol, it simply pushed it underground (covertly) and led to other collateral damage (crime rings and mobs). Only some time later the government realized it was a bad idea and reversed course, but the damage was still done.

Personally, I believe if people were not only allowed to CTB as an valid option, and also given peaceful means to escape this world of suffering, we would see much less collateral damage and more people opting for peaceful, reliable means. Sure, the providers and people who handle dead bodies (medical professionals, coroners, and authorities) will suffer a bit, but it is a natural part of life. Ironically, many prolifers who come into existence only think of existence while ignoring that death is just part of the life cycle. They try so damn hard to avoid mortality, including the discussion of it. It is nothing more than just mere distractions from reality with a lot of coping.

The last part is indeed true, there will always be people who are saddened by another's bus, but in the end, each individual has rights, including the right to die (preferably in a peaceful and dignified manner).

Sometimes collateral damage is inevitable, the important thing is to minimalise it as much as possible.

Yes, this is why I strive to make my CTB as damage free as much as my circumstances allow it (though not to the point where I couldn't reliably carry out my attempt because that would just defeat the purpose of CTB in the first place).

I think the idea is probably to avoid and/or limit collateral damage where practicable to do so AND to give a fair opinion on that when asked about the merits of a particular method. After all, when people ask they are inviting opinion.

Some forms are so egregious that they should be categorically avoided. Stuff like not checking where you're jumping...

The mental toll on bypassers or a train driver should be considered in my opinion, and if there are options available that mean you can pass on out of the sight of others they probably should be strongly considered.

But yes, I don't think it's about lecturing people that consider jumping in front of a train. Clearly their situation is bad enough that this is not necessary. It's just bringing to their attention all of the ramifications because often people are not thinking straight.

Indeed that is true and oftenly with violent methods, they could be avoided if there were more 'peaceful' yet reliable options to exit this world. Barring that, yes methods that limit exposure of others and unwilling participants is a good idea and generally preferred. Though in reality, sometimes that is the only option that said person may have and while I don't endorse it, I can empathize and understand their reasoning and circumstance(s) that they are in.

 

[TAW122]

I'm bumping this thread as I've just had something to add. Regarding collateral damage, it can be divided into two main types. Intentional or deliberate collateral damage and unintentional or accidental collateral damage.

Intentional or deliberate collateral damage is where a person knowingly and willingly takes an action that he/she knows will result in collateral damage, even if it is avoidable or preventable. In other words, someone who has other options available yet chooses to proceed with said action resulting in damage to other unwilling participants.

Examples of intentional collateral damage:
1) High impact crash that results in the death (or serious injury) of another unwilling participant despite knowing that it could cause damage to others.
2) Using a inert gas in a shared living space or dwelling that while may result in successful CTB, endanger others' lives who otherwise would not have been aware nor wish to be (negatively) impacted by said action.

Unintentional or accidental collateral damage is where a person does not intend to cause collateral damage (sometimes even going out of one's way to avoid damage to others), but indirectly causes damage despite doing one's best to prevent such a situation.

Examples of unintentional collateral damage:
1) Jumping from a height and making a mess of the ground, resulting in other third parties (or first responders) to clean up the mess.
2) Using a firearm and similarly causing a mess or lowering of another venue's property value (or damage to property) as a result of CTB via firearm.

As a usual recap, my stance still stands; I would greatly discourage the use of methods that would cause collateral damage, (especially if the person has other options and/or can minimize the chances or odds of it), but yet at the same time, I understand that for some people, that may be their only option as they lack the means, resources, and/or ability to access more peaceful, less risky, and/or less likely to cause collateral damage. In other words, I don't encourage nor condone intentional collateral damage and would advise to avoid it when possible, but when indirect, unintentional collateral damage happens, I accept that it is inevitable though I commend those who are able to minimize the impact on others.