[WikiEN-l] "Suicide methods" atricle: Epilogue

[Anthony]

On 4/20/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/04/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > As for the Suicide methods Article: I can see no positive reason for its
> > existence.
>
> I can. It's part of a field of academic study - a current one, one
> that reflects a facet of modern society - and an encyclopedia is
> essentially a synopsis of existing academic knowledge for the general
> reader.
>
> Why is it a field of research? Why does it help society to know about
> what methods someone chooses to take their life, rather than just the
> bald numbers of how many do?
>
> It informs public debate. It informs the debate on gun control to know
> the levels and patterns of shooting sucides; it informs the debate on
> restructions on sale of dangerous substances to know the rates of
> self-induced poisoning; it informs the debate on drug policy to be
> able to confidently divide drug-overdose statistics into wilful and
> accidental.
>
But...that's not in the article, and there's no reason that it
shouldn't be in an article on [[suicide]].

> It tells us interesting things about cultures and groups, using this
> as another way to examine similarities and differences.
>
> And, yes, it helps those who wish to kill themselves choose a method.
> But it also helps those who wish to prevent them from doing so, by
> informing them on the best ways to spend their energies.
>
> If people want to kill themselves, they're going to do it. They're
> going to read up on it, and if we have an article then, yes, they are
> likely to read that. I know of cases where this has happened. It's
> sad, but if we did not have this article, I don't think they would
> have stopped.
>
> I am really not convinced that having a factual, well-written,
> non-sensationalist article on the methods by which people commit
> suicide is any less appropriate for an encyclopedia by having a
> factual, well-written, non-sensationalist article on the causes of
> accidental death, or on the medical causes of death through illness.
>
Are there currently articles about either of those?  [[Causes of
accidental death]]?  Nope.  [[Medical causes of death through
illness]]?  Nope.

> If the article was attempting to be a guide to methods, then yes, it
> should be cleaned up. But it is not an inherently vicious topic.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk