Talk:Suicide bag/Archive 1

Copyright Violation / DMCA Takedown Notice

On August 1 and 2, 2009, 129.241.137.240 added, to the 'See Also" section of this Wikipedia article, direct links to allow the downloading of a pirated version of the copyrighted Final Exit PDF eBook and to allow viewing of a pirated copy of the copyrighted Final Exit Addendum. Both actions were DMCA violations, in addition to the DMCA violations due to the offending domain hosting the two copyrighted documents. And more importantly these actions were just plain wrong. The links have been removed from this article. Wikipedia Managers please remove these URLs from the history of this Wikipedia page. The DIY book which is also listed in 'See Also' section is also likely copyrighted and the download link should be deleted as well. Anonymous 129.241.137.240 should be banned from making any further edits to any Wikipedia pages, and all edits to any other Wikipedia pages by this IP should be investigated. SilverLiner (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

DIY version

Are the DIY steps really necessary? The video (that they seem to be taken from) is referenced in the article, so should such a subject have a "how to" section? [ cycle~ ] (talk), 02:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the video has been removed from Youtube after protests from religious groups opposed to people having control over the time of their dying, and could be removed from other repositories at a moment's notice, and since as an Inclusionist I see no value in removing data from this short article, I would prefer to see it stay. ► RATEL ◄ 02:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My issue is not really with the content, but how it's displayed. It is very much a set of instructions, but I feel it would be more useful in prose, as a less-structured how-to guide: "The steps to making an Exit Bag (as described by EXIT Australia) include using such items as...". Additionally, if the video is no longer available on YouTube (where it was embedded from in the source used) is there another available source to cite in its place? [ cycle~ ] (talk), 02:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, cycle~. Here's the original text, please rework it into prose that does not lose the informational value, if you can.

The steps to making an Exit Bag can be summarised as follows:

1. Get a large size oven bag
2. Fold up the open end for 2 to 3 centimetres (0.79 to 1.18 in)
3. Tape down the folded edges on each side using Micropore tape
4. On one side in the middle, use two 10 centimetres (3.9 in) pieces of tape to reinforce a section of the fold right to the edge of the bag
5. In the reinforced section, use scissors to cut an opening perpendicularly through the fold
6. Thread thin elastic through the tunnel created by the fold
7. Once threaded, attach loose ends of elastic to a plastic flat-topped cord lock or cord toggle (available from a haberdashery)

Yes, the video is available elsewhere (for the time being). The article has a link (I think). ► RATEL ◄ 03:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image

I found and uploaded to Commons an image of a suicide bag demonstration: Image:Suicide bag.jpg. While probably not unencyclopedic, it looks rather disturbing. Any thoughts on adding it to the article? Óðinn (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? A pic of a teenager clowning around in a plastic bag? Get real. ► RATEL ◄ 06:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Is there an appropriate picture in your mind for this article? And if so, what would it be? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

An appropriate picture would be a pictorial of a bag, without the contorted face of a clown inside it. I would have thought that was self evident. Did you really have to ask that question? ► RATEL ◄ 23:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the picture is a very appropriate. This important subject needs to be illustrated, and this is free picture that was created for this purpose, like many other on wikipedia. That some users do not like it, that is not relevant. And please, do not call other wikipedians "clowns", this is inappropriate to say the least. Daa-gamma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

It's not appropriate in the slightest. It's a sick-humor teenage prank. ► RATEL ◄ 16:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion. I do not find anything humorous about the subject, and illustration is appropriate. If you can make a better one, upload it yourself, but this is the best we have so far. Daa-gamma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Not only is it NOT a suicide bag, but the image is clearly unencyclopedic. You will end up having your IP banned if you continue this. ► RATEL ◄ 16:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You insult other editors, call them clowns, push your POV, and now threaten me on top of all this. Please mind civility rules here. This illustration is appropriate and was already suggested by another editor. It will not be erased just based on your arbitrary and questionable taste. Daa-gamma (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The image is very misleading. Dr Philip Nitschke explains in The Peaceful Pill Handbook: "There is much misinformation however about how a plastic Exit Bag works and why it is so effective. The common assumption is that the bag causes death by "suffocation". … For example, when referring in 2001 to the importation of Canadian Exit bags, The Australian newspaper reported these bags as 'reminiscent of the Khmer Rouge's shopping bag executions in Cambodia's killing fields.' Such misinformation shows a significant lack of understanding of the process, and such reports have damaged the image of the Exit Bag."

When used properly, "the plastic Exit Bag causes a peaceful death; one that comes from (freely) breathing low oxygen air (hypoxia). With an Exit Bag, a person breathes easily and peacefully. The bag expands and contracts with each breath and the oxygen level inside the bag falls. This is in stark contrast to the terror of suffocation." – 129.241.137.240 (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes the image was very misleading. Thank you for removing it. SilverLiner (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Suicide vs. Category:Suicide methods

Category:Suicide methods is itself a category within Category:Suicide. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cautionary Statement

Be advised, this article and the information contained with-in are for informational purposes. This is serious subject matter and for anyone reading this article, for anything but educational research, please consider all actions and thoughts. Reach out to a local agency for help. Someone close to me has learned the hard way, and while I cannot ask for this article to be removed making which would have made it more difficult to find the information, I can implore others to seek hep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.74.138 (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of majority of article

User claudiosantos has tried to reduce the article to a stub by removing the historical info about what forms of suicide bag were available over the years. I ask him to stop. The justifications he gave are not appropriate. Jabbsworth (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User Night of the Big Wind is insisting that any mention of the video that shows people how to make an exit bag is "promotional", and that any mention of the suicide tent, which makes the bag unnecessary, is also promotional. It appears he thinks I work for exit international. I do not, please let it be known. I ask NoBW to put here his version of the deleted text so that we can still mention these real things that actually occurred/exist without seeming to promote anyone. BTW, I have just checked and that Betty video is now available all over the net, eg here. Jabbsworth (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Publishing details of how a suicide bag works and its effects are not encyclopedic purposes, but purposes of the cited pro-euthanasia organizations promoting the use of this device. Therefore thus using wikipedia to achieve their private goals. And publishing how a suicide device works could be an infrigment of american laws prohibitting to assist suicide and binding to wikimedia foundation inc. I will take all that info out. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think this breaks the law, take it up at the relevant noticeboard; do not start another editwar please. Jabbsworth (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The present version, without the history and the DIY-versions but with the (smaller) picture included, is in my opinion the most neutral version. No pro's, no con's, no manuals. Just: this is a suicide bag and it works this way. Maybe, maybe, maybe, an external link can be added to the DIY-department, if that makes Jabbsworth happy. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the longer, stable, sourced version of the article is "POV pushing." Merely describing the history of a suicide bag is in no way an endorsement of it. I'd be tempted to revert to the older version, but I'm not really interested in getting caught up in the tendentious edit-warring that is going on lately at some of the euthanasia and suicide related articles. Still i thought it worth mentioning here on the talk page in case there are others who might agree but are also reluctant to get entangled in the apparently inevitable edit war - please come out of the woodwork if you're there. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I don't see the alleged POV pushing. I'll revert... Jesanj (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion opening

In my opinion several parts are not useful or even irrelevant for the article. I like to hear comments from others about this. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not how one conducts a RfC. Do you need help? Jabbsworth (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not from you. I just choose the wrong titel. And please, refrain from editing someone elses contributions. That is highly annoying and often considered disruptive editing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DIY

In my opinion the whole part about the DIY-versions is unencyclopedic and should be removed. An encyclopedia is not the place to tell what types of bags are available and how to use them. Promoting suicide is illegal in several countries, and adding the DIY-version can be seen as promotion and thus make WP vulnerable to prosecution.

The types described originally were closely related to companies named in the article, making it promotional. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

If the material is reliably sourced, and it is, to book and/or newspapers, then it should be there. More sources can be found as well. Make sure you read wp:CENSOR. Jabbsworth (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

NoBW you were definitely on to something. The writing was unencyclopedic how-to language. I believe the DIY issue is now resolved, as I have rewritten this tiny section. Jesanj (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

At any rate, provide a manual to commit suicide is not the purpose of wikipedia but the prupose of Exit International and the other cited organizations there. Or am I wrong and the prupose of this encyclopedia is to provide manuals to commit suicide? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not wrong. That's exactly why I rewrote the section. Jesanj (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If we can agree on the version of Jesanj I swallow it. But not more then that... Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted another paragraph also. Still I have my doubts that this article is not written like an advertisement or unduly centered in a thing that could be mentioned with one or two sentences in another article. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And I just see now that also Jesanj consider that it is overdetailed. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not currently. Jesanj (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

History

The history section is also too closely related to the companies mentioned within. Partly it is based on a references to an article named "Patience and Plastic Bags". Unfortunately this article refers to endnotes that are not there, making this references substandard. Another part "Dr Nitschke has stated that nitrogen is more physiological than helium and less likely to lead to body movements during dying. is referenced to "The Peaceful Pill Handbook". Unfortunately, the references to it is nothing more then a link to the cover of the book. It supplies no information at all!

In fact this paragraph works as a manual, telling people how to commit suicide. Promoting suicide is illegal in several countries, and adding the DIY-version can be seen as promotion and thus make WP vulnerable to prosecution.

As the paragraph is badly referenced and "illegal" (at least in some countries) is should be removed completely or be rewritten is such a way that is does not works as a manual or promotes books.Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

If you feel there are legal issues, you must take this to a noticeboard, not discuss it here. Jabbsworth (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

At any rate, provide a manual to commit suicide is not the purpose of wikipedia but the prupose of Exit International and the other cited organizations there. Or am I wrong and the prupose of this encyclopedia is to provide manuals to commit suicide? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This article has never been a 'manual to commit suicide', despite one or two overly detailed descriptions of how to use the device which have since been curtailed. The fact that this device was promoted by euthanasia groups IS the history of the device, it's not promoting the groups. I'm open to minimizing claimed benefits of the device that can't be suitably referenced... however, I'll remind people that references need not be online references. --Versageek 18:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As Versageek states, the source does not have to be online, per wp:RS ("It is useful but by no means necessary for the [material] to be accessible via the Internet."). And describing, in one sentence, how the bag is made is not a how-to or "suicide manual", it is merely describing the subject of the article. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jabbswroth you have been always expressively defending to publish in the article a very detailed description how to build the bag. I think you should keep aside due your expressively published own interests. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Say what? There was consensus to change a list of instructions to a single sentence that described how a SB is made. This is wholly in keeping with what the article is about. Basically, it's an elasticized large plastic bag. There's no way to conceal what it is. I find your broken language hard to interpret ... what do you mean by "your expressive own interests"? Jabbsworth (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I again forgot that instead of thinking, you prefer help for reading. Or was you just again remarking other's spelling to personally attack?. Whatever. It meant: your expressively published own interests. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Still can't follow what you mean. Please try to stop making PAs with every comment. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't you worry. It is not addressed to you Jabbsworth. Habent sua fata libelli. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

medical literature section

While I appreciate the excellent efforts made to reliably source the material, I tend to agree that the current content in this section is excessive and reads like a 'glowing review'. My guess is that this device is rather efficient in what it is designed to do, so it may be hard to find reliably sourced material about problems with the design/effectiveness of the device - without falling into the whole pro/anti suicide debate, which is out of scope for this article. --Versageek 17:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the case report could be easily cut in half and the other sentences likely need rewriting. But your last sentence bothers me. Are you suggesting that because, in your opinion, it's hard to incorporate this material without taking sides, that that's a reason to exclude it? That would be a horrible idea, in my opinon, because the NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. Jesanj (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

At this moment I am suspicious about a possible conflict of interest. I would be handy to make the article more international. It is unlikely that suicide bags are only used in Australia! And by giving a more international outlook to the article, the influence of the possible COI is lessened. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the nth time you have raised COI, despite denials. I would direct you to Wikipedia's policy against harassment and caution you that if this continues, I will take it to the noticeboard. I also direct you to wp:COI that states: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." Secondly, on the article in question, the article mentions that the bags were sold from Canada, it also mentions the Final Exit Network of Georgia and the Gladd Group of California, so we have a north American bias, if anything. Nitshke is a successor to Kevorkian, it seems to me, unless there are other MDs out there with the same activities (tell me if there are), so naturally he will feature in any such article prominently. There is nothing stopping you or any other editor from inserting materials relevant to other countries, or people, since this article is still small and needs expansion. Have you added any material at all to te article, or done any research? Have you tried to expand the article? Jabbsworth (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, and have you any real arguments? Or do you just wanna kick me out of here because I am unconvenient and critical? Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So you agree then, that you have added nothing to the article and that other editors may be finding your presence here unhelpful? Jabbsworth (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• grin* Have you nothing else to do then ad hominem attacks and provocations? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be excluded, but we should avoid overloading the article with material which favors a specific POV. I also think we shouldn't let this article about an object become a coatrack for the pro/anti suicide issue. --Versageek 19:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We should reflect what the medical literature says about the object. If there is a bias in those sources, then it's consistent with NPOV to reflect it (unless I am misunderstanding NPOV). Jesanj (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Other editors are welcome to insert negative comments from the medical literature. I tried to find some, but was not able to, and even though there seems to be a positive "spin" on the article, you'll find it genuinely represents what's out there in the literature. Have a go yourself. I'd like to see more editors adding material and improving the page. There are at least 2 editors currently engaged here who seemingly have no purpose other than to remove as much material as possible. And that's not the way to edit. Jabbsworth (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Those content are at any rate WP:UNDUE for a topic that has not demonstrated its encyclopedic relevancy. Cherry picking medical articles does not make it relevant. Anyone can cherry pick an medical article for a loot of very specific things for a very specific public but not for an encyclopedia. Jabbsworth has done since ever trying to keep links or to put here directly how to fabricate that bag which is a very dubious interest coincident with the interest of those organizations which promote this bag. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, CS, and I'll repeat it, you are welcome to go and "cherrypick" opposing viewpoints. You know where to do the research, on Medline, right? Are you willing to do some work to improve the article, or are you only here because of the edit war you have embarked upon with me? If you are not here to improve the article, then you should not be here at all. Jabbsworth (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You can also improve an article by keeping the POV-opinions at bay. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You have yet to show anyone here where the POV exists. It's all hand waving thus far. Jabbsworth (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes a smokescreen does not work... Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

So we agree then, your POV accusation smokescreen has not worked. Good, that's progress. So, it's time to come up with specifics. Where, exactly, is the text POV? To show it is POV, you have to show what data I have excluded. Go for it! Jabbsworth (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Missed my point> Cherry picking pros or contras, will not make this article relevant but only will serve to certain agenda interested in promote the use of this devices. Is that the criteria of relevancy in wikipedia? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Help me to understand you here: are you saying the entire subject is not encyclopedic? That would fly in the face of all the newspaper, book and scientific/medical literature coverage. So I hope that is not what you are saying. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed para

I wish to re-insert this para (slightly modified here), removed by CS. It is apposite:

The "Exit Bag" was described as a large plastic bag with an adjustable velcro strip around the neck area. Different models of the "Exit Bag" were described in Hemlock publications, and the use of helium was encouraged. Hemlock newsletter articles encouraged the helium and plastic bag method, saying that the gas "disperses easily and is difficult to trace in a corpse". Readers were assured that "a little twitching in the arms and legs" doesn't last long and should be expected. Nitschke has stated that nitrogen is well tolerated by the human body with less possibility of adverse reaction by those inhaling it compared to helium has a lower risk of an adverse reaction than helium.

Comments? Jabbsworth (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd strike the disperses easily/twitching part and trim Nitschke to "says nitrogen has a lower risk of an adverse reaction than helium". I'm fine with the other stuff as those details deal with the characteristics of the bag. Jesanj (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative: The "Exit Bag" was described as a large plastic bag with an adjustable velcro strip around the neck area. This looks enough to me. The other proposed additions makes it overly detailed. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The articles Suicide bag and Euthanasia device are very similar in subject and partly copies of each other. I suggest to merge these two into Euthanasia device. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the merge, but my concern with that would be that suicide and euthanasia aren't the same thing, and this device can be used for both. If there is consensus for a merge, I suggest that some or most of the content here also be merged to Suicide methods. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Partial overlap is not a reason to merge. I don't see a rationale. Jesanj (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal

Per WP:COMMONNAME to Exit bag Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Agree. SBHarris 23:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"Exit bag" clearly meets the criteria in WP:COMMONNAME.

Weird nitrogen asphyxiation article

As this article on suicide bag makes clear, we actually know more about deliberate helium asphyxiation in humans than we know about nitrogen used that way, but what little we know about nitrogen is for suicides. Any inert gas will do, and there's no reason to think nitrogen is different from any other inert gas, like argon (helium might be a little different from the others for physical reasons, inasmuch as it's so much lighter than air that it goes to the top of a bag open at the bottom, so tends to stay put in the right place in the top of a do-it-yourself contraption that goes over the head). But the article on nitrogen asphyxiation is almost entirely about a proposed use of nitrogen in this fashion for capital punishment, and secondarily about animal euthanasia. Unfortunately, the original proposer of this execution method for humans didn't suggest argon or helium, or else the article on capital punishment by asphyxiation would now be called argon asphyxiation or helium asphyxiation, or something, and the confusion with this article on suicide would be even worse.

What we really need is an article called Inert gas asphyxiation, which is a general topic. It can have a section on animals (main article: Controlled atmosphere killing), and the rest of it, about human asphyxiation, can be neatly divided into suicide (with main article suicide bag), and capital punishment/homicide. Under capital punishment can go the nitrogen suggestion and material about that, which now composes most of the nitrogen asphyxiation article, even though nitrogen has never been yet been used in capital punishment! Yet nitrogen has been used as an asphyxiant many times by asphyxiant suicides (though not as much as helium). So the nitrogen asphyxiation article should have material about them, which is instead here on suicide bag.

What say you all? SBHarris 00:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to assume that any Noble gas is physiologically equivalent for this purpose, but I wouldn't support adding Nitrogen to that list without some citations supporting it. We know that in some situations Nitrogen does have an effect on the human body: see Nitrogen narcosis. (BTW, that article has an uncited claim at the top of the second paragraph that relates to this question). And of course Carbon Dioxide is out: see Hypercapnia. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that CO2 is not inert and 10 or 20% would kill rapidly where the others wouldn't even be noticed. So CO2 must come out of the inert gas asphyxiation articles. Nobody would use it for suicide either as it's very distressing in many ways. As for nitrogen vs noble gasses you are chemically right but physiologically wrong. At sea level pressure they all have little narcotic effect save Xe which is even more narcotic than nitrous oxide. The narcotic effect of going from 78 to 100% nitrogen wouuld be like diving to 7 feet depth. Divers feel no effect at 10 times that. Inert gas narcosis is not a chemical effect in the usual sense, since noble gases show it. Read argox. Argon is more narcotic than nitrogen! But at sea level pressures, all this is irrelevant and all can be considered equally inert. Nobody can afford to commit suicide with krypton or xenon, which are chemically inert but NOT physiologically inert at sea level.SBHarris 22:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was thinking chemistry, which neither Argon or Helium participate in under normal circumstances, but clearly the narcosis doesn't involve a chemical reaction. If only there was some sort of online encyclopedia where I could go and learn about this sort of thing. I bet a website like that would be really popular... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, we are slowly organizing that stuff into THESE articles, as you see. See the mechanism discussion at the end of the wiki on inhalational anaesthetic. Even some anesthesiologists are not aware that argon does the same thing xenon does, except at higher pressure. This is a rather odd fact that deserves to be better known-- it speaks to the mechanism of ALL gas anesthetics. Right now the inert gas asphyxiation article doesn't include the suicide uses (it should-- a lot of material from here should be moved there, or at least summarized there) and doesn't have a full discussion of gas narcosis effects at different pressures (as few people commit suicide at depth...). Some discussion is in the individual gas articles. You might be interested to know that the depth records for scuba using air have been officially stopped, as trying to set them killed too many people from nitrogen narcosis blackout, which happens increasingly below 200 feet. The great Sheck Exley, who was very resistant to nitrogen narcosis, was a safety diver for two people who tried to set the air record at 400 feet. He saw them sitting on the bottom at 400 ft, still breathing but anesthetized, but he couldn't get to them because he started to black out every time he got below about 350 feet. In the end he had to leave them down there quietly blowing bubbles, until they ran out. This was in the days before helium was easy for sport divers to get, so even as a safety diver, Exley didn't have it. SBHarris 01:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

New subtitle Entry?

No mention of possible failure to "exit". One of the most common types of failure to suicide using an exit bag was the spasming of the body which could possibly throw off or puncture an exit bag when in use thus admitting oxygen to the person. A very real possibility of leaving a person alive but mentally brain damaged from lack of oxygen for a period of time. I'd think the easist way to shuffle off wouldto be build a simple wooden box and pipe in the gas via a regulation metering system! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.80.179 (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In general people don't become brain damaged because of pure lack of oxygen for a period of time. Pneumonia does not result in brain damaged people, and drowning doesn't either, if the heart didn't stop. People become brain damaged from lack of blood flow to the brain for a period of time, but that takes strangulation or cardiac arrest. If you have enough oxygen that the heart continues going, that's generally enough to prevent brain damage. Pure respiratory arrest (where the heart never stopped) doesn't cause brain damage. Divers trying to set the record for depth don't come up brain damaged. People saved from Mt. Everest (for example) don't survive with brain damage (they survive with frostbite and missing limbs, but their brains, if they recover from the ordeal, are fine). Finally, a few people have brain damage from carbon monoxide poisoning, but that's an active poison that binds to enzymes in the brain and causes damage that is much worse than simple lack of oxygen. SBHarris 00:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Leaving aside the engineering (a heavy vinyl bag with a positive non-elastic closure would be less likely to admit oxygen than a wooden box would), 115.70.80.179's comments raise two questions in my mind. First, does a suicide bag actually cause convulsions or anything similar? Second, if someone spends a certain amount of time breathing pure Helium and then is exposed to normal air, would it be fair to say that they would either end up dead or (eventually) fully recovered? Or is there some sort of permanent damage that happens if it doesn't kill you? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's fair to say that a purely respiratory hypoxic insult generally does not cause brain damage. You die or recover fully if re-oxygenated, presuming no complicating structural factors like an induced stroke in an older person or someone with a congenital brain arterial malformation. Never say "never" in biology, but the general rule is that it takes cardiac arrest, and artificial resuscitation from that, to cause permanent mental deficits in young otherwise healthy persons. SBHarris 09:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for that. As for "does a suicide bag actually cause convulsions or anything similar?", without getting into too mush detail, yes it is possible as some have survived to watch the recording they made of themselves. No referance or citations obviously since this is a sensitive subject for most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.80.179 (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

22:49, 27 November 2013: David14433 reverts[1]

01:36, 28 November 2013: Bilby reverts.[2]

03:06, 28 November 2013: David14433 reverts then expands.[3]

06:50, 28 November 2013: Cmr08 reverts.[4]

13:11, 28 November 2013: David14433 warned.[5]

---

07:55, 14 December 2013: David14433 inserts an external link into a see also section.[6]

19:25, 14 December 2013: Dainomite reverts.[7]

05:44, 15 December 2013: David14433 reverts.[8]

06:08, 15 December 2013: Dainomite reverts.[9]

07:23, 15 December 2013: David14433 warned.[10]

07:24, 15 December 2013: Dainomite warned.[11]

During this time, nobody discussed these edits on the article talk page.

Please stop edit warring. Please follow WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. I would rather avoid filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hotline

Was discussed here [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Image

Yes, it's OR, because it's an artist's impression drawn by an editor, not a depiction of something agreed to be the thing. Example: a picture of an apple may or may not be a good picture of an apple, but a picture of a suicide bag may be completely made up because there is no commercial product with which other editors can compare it in order to verify that it's correct.

Oh, and guess what people think when they have found loved ones dead with one of these over their head, and find that Wikipedia has an extended how-to? Guess who they blame? Guy (Help!) 20:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese Government get the blame? With other words: I am not convinced. The Banner talk 22:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully they blame the person killing themselves, since everyone is entitled to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.164.223.168 (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Makeshift

Is there any reports of makeshift suicide bags? 74.248.55.174 (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Aren't they all? They're not particularly difficult to rig. 24.21.151.167 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Also informal term in biology for a lysosome

That is by far the commoner use in a Google Books search. Equinox (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Actual process

It may be worthwhile to include some reference to what actually happens during the use of a suicide bag using a noble gas. From this source we get the following data:

“ Two physicians witnessed dozens of deaths using helium gas. They state that the person generally lost consciousness within about thirty seconds on average. A criminologist who witnessed two such deaths published his observations in an academic journal.[source below] The following paragraphs summarise his report. After the person loses consciousness, the eyes often turn upwards. Breathing becomes faster and the heart carries on beating for at least ten minutes. Sometimes the tongue protrudes from the mouth, and one of the person’s arms or legs may move (physicians call such spasms ‘stretch reflexes’). These reflexes may often be emotionally shocking to the person’s loved ones, if the latter are not aware that they precede death. For they may create the impression that their loved one is regaining consciousness, whereas in fact precisely the opposite is true. Those present should also be prepared for the fact that for about ten minutes, a gasp or snoring noise will be heard intermittently. In such a gasp, the person is not inhaling oxygen but the helium that is in the bag. Once the tap on a full tank has been turned slightly, helium will continue to flow for at least twenty minutes, although it can no longer be heard after the first few minutes. A loved one can try to take the pulse to find out whether the heart is still beating, but someone without medical training can easily come to the wrong conclusion. In any case, it would be wise to leave the bag in place for another quarter of an hour after the final gasp before taking it off to close the eyes. ”

The source for this data is Ogden R.D. ‘Observations on Two Helium Suicides by Helium Inhalation in a Prefilled Environment’ in Am J Forensic Med Pathol vol. 31, no. 2, June 2010. PMID 20216304 Ratel (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that Philip Nitschke has stated that the 'stretch reflexes' or twitchings are less likely to occur with the use of nitrogen, which he says is a more "physiologically inert" gas than helium. Ratel (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)