Talk:Suicide bag/Archive 2

Needs better references

Here are some problems with sources in Suicide bag#Medical literature

1. Fails verification: "A case report study in 2015 found that "freedom from discomfort and pain, effectiveness, rapid effect and relatively easy availability of required accessories have resulted in the use of inert gases for suicidal purposes." The source doesn't say anything remotely similar, which is why I removed it earlier, but it was reinserted. (Smędra A, Szustowski S, Jurczyk AP, Klemm J, Szram S, Berent J (2015). "Suicidal asphyxiation by using helium - two case reports". Arch Med Sadowej Kryminol 65 (1): 37–46)
2. Fails verifiction: "Cases using suicide bags and gases other than noble gases are recorded, for instance a propane-butane mixture,[37] and methane (natural gas).[38]" The new methane gas source still failed verification -- no bag (or mask) mentioned. So far only one source discussing the suicide bag with something other than noble gas, so that sentence it should be re-worded so as not to imply there's more than one. (Rossi et al. (2013). "An unusual suicide: asphyxia by methane gas". Am J Forensic Med Pathol 34 (2): 83–5)
3. Ogden, the primary person cited in this section, is a masters level sociologist, and therefore does not write "medical literature." The section heading should be changed or only medical literature should be included.
4. This article should only include discussion of suicide bags, not suicides involving masks -- Ogden et al. (2010), irrelevant -- no bag. (Ogden et al. (2010). "Assisted suicide by oxygen deprivation with helium at a Swiss right-to-die organisation.". J Med Ethics 36 (3): 174–9.)
5. All of the references to Ogden's work are primary and biased, and since this topic is so "well documented," I question if we should include Ogden's work in the research section at all.

I'm happy to make the changes. PermStrump(talk) 08:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Please give me some time to address your points here before making any changes. Thanks Ratel (talk)

1. PMID 26007160 states, in its abstract, and I quote "Freedom from discomfort and pain, effectiveness, rapid effect and relatively easy availability of required accessories have resulted in the use of inert gases for suicidal purposes." Are you seeing a different abstract to the one I'm reading? Or perhaps you are reading the actual text of the study and not the abstract?
2. PMID 23574867 does not mention a mask or bag, but does discuss a tube to the mouth. If we are going to be picky, we can use PMID 20430818 instead.
3. Russel Ogden? He's described by The Vancouver Sun as one of "the world’s foremost experts on assisted suicide" [1] and has a long list of studies into this topic. To say his work cannot be quoted here because he does not have a medical degree, only a professorship in sociology and criminology, is risible. He is eminently suited to commenting on case histories, as he does, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, which is classed as medical literature. It's part of The BMJ, which has an impact factor of 17.4 ranking it fifth among general medical journals. Perhaps you would like to change the heading to "Medical and bioethical literature"? Feel free
4. Masks are attenuated bags, or containers. The study goes on to recommend "hoods" (i.e. bags) instead of masks, so it is very suited for inclusion.
5. "Ogden's work are primary and biased" — his paper is about biomedical ethics. He does not report novel treatments, drugs, or findings that need to be replicated (which is the chief reason MEDRS discourages primaries; I quote MEDRS here: Research papers that describe original experiments are primary sources). You are welcome to insert the opposing view, if you feel that is required. And there is no reason to exclude bioethical research from the research section. Ratel (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

1. I was referring to the actual text which doesn't say anything along those lines. The whole thing is in English below the Polish.
2. I'll look at it later.
3. People can be experts in a lot of things, but he's still not a medical expert or writing medical literature. It's misleading to call it that.
4. This is an article specifically about one thing, a suicide bag. The rest of it can go in Suicide methods. Masks and bags hardly the same thing.
5. WP:EXTRAORDINARY ("Quick and painless"). That's a biomedical claim, not an ethical claim, that needs MEDRS. It's also hard to believe and not supported by independent, medical literature.Frost et al 2013 said, "In our case 2 autopsy revealed bilateral eyelid petechiae and large amounts of gastric content in the airways. These findings challenge the assumption that death by this method is painless and without air hunger, as asserted in Final Exit." This is a great source, it's independent and written by a medical expert and the most of it is a secondary review of the literature.

PermStrump(talk) 12:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Why should the "quick and painless" have MEDRS sources? It is an observation. not a claim of some sort. The Banner talk 15:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Addressing Permstrump:

1. I'm aware that the English text is below. At least you are no longer claiming the text is not in the study (the abstract is part of the study).
2. -
3. Arguable point, if it irks you we can get other input. I maintain that medical ethics is part of medicine. Anyway I've changed the subhead to Medical and Bioethic literature
4. A bag is a modified mask. It's an item that covers the nose and mouth for purposes of prevent air inhalation, so very little difference. And anyway, the same paper references "hoods", which are germane (some sources online refer to the suicide bag as a hood, google "helium hood")
5. Interesting, but since Case 1 had no petechiae or aspirated vomitus, and since Lamotrigine (which Case 2 took) has vomiting as one if its known side effects, it does not undermine the existing literature on this form of death, and the many other observations of corpses after this sort of death, none of which showed petechiae or vomiting. Technique is important, and dosing up with drugs not advised, from my reading. Ratel (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Mass revert with blanket accusation of POV

The Banner, when you mass revert multiple edits I've made and claim that they were all "POV edits" after I took the time to write individual explanations for each edit, it feels like you're the one pushing a POV and reflexively reverting my edits without taking the time to look at them or what I've written in my edit summaries or respond to them individually. I got that impression from your recent revert in combination with your response here when I suggested and RFC which you equated to an "enemy take over" and accused me of planning to bring in the friends to legalize it by using an RFC? And here where you referred to MEDRS as "biased, selective," "a death knell for all articles hammered with it" and "top-heavy sources weighing like lead on mnost articles." Here where you accused me and other editors of working together to "claim more territory" Or here where you said I suggest that WikiProject Medicine and her MEDRS completely withdraw from this article instead of killing it off deliberately." All of these were in response to a policy or guideline an editor mentioned on the talkpage in relation to the articles content. Instead of directly responding to any of those concerns, you chose to accuse anyone who disagreed with you of attempting to takeover and destroy the article. And you repeatedly rejected policies and guidelines based only on the fact that they were too stifling.

Please un-revert my edits and bring your specific issues with them to the talkpage. I'll be happy to discuss them and the relevant policies and guidelines in more detail. PermStrump(talk) 10:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

As some stated before:

PermStrump you should recuse yourself from editing this article and related subjects. You obviously have a bias against the subject and you refuse to address any of the points that I bring up about this directly. You're only making this worse for yourself. --Lo te xendo (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The Banner talk 10:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Permstrump, you almost had me on your side until the latest set of edits, and then you lost me by overreaching. Take a wikibreak, thanks. Ratel (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

All editors should WP:FOC, there is a lot of personal comment-making and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR here which is disruptive. An RfC or some other form of WP:DR would be an appropriate way to proceed is the dispute can be crystallised into a question. Alexbrn (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been editing this and related articles for a long time, but I try to stop any WP:OWN behaviour if I can. I do welcome all new editors to the page, especially if they are intent on improving it. Unfortunately some of the latest batch of editors have clearly been more interested in censoring data than expanding it, and while I have some sympathy with their apparent motivations, I cannot agree when blatantly POV attempts are made to slant the page in a way that basically tells an untruth, which is that a bag+inert gas is a poor way of ending your life. We have ample evidence from numerous sources that this is a quick and easy way to die, and deleting that simple fact from the page by impugning the source is POV, plain and simple. Some eyewitness accounts:

In the several events I have observed the person breathes the odorless, tasteless helium deeply about three or four times and then is unconscious, no gagging or gasping. Death follows in 4-5 minutes. A peaceful process.(not RS)

When I witnessed the helium death of a friend of mine it could not have been more peaceful.(This is a quote from Derek Humphry himself, so possibly RS)

So yes, I'd love to see one clear question arise from this flurry of editing. I'd also appreciate it if the editors who are deleting data or trying to weight the page towards a sense of criminality and unreliability would come clean about their intentions, or attempt to adopt a more NPOV attitude and edit constructively. Ratel (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

In my estimation, the edits I've been witnessing are about an agenda that openly displays hostility toward the subject. WP:POV pushing. There was an attempt to gut the sources and the text, with an implicit attempt to make the article disappear through WP:AFD or WP:Merge. It is part of a larger editing Self fulfilling prophecy. Been there; done that; seen this before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Telling other editors to "take a wikibreak" is classic WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. In my view sourcing accounts of suicides to eyewitness accounts is misleading and undue; we do not use testimonials in this way (much as the faith healers and quacks would like us to for accounts of miracle cures) as it gives undue weight to marginal information. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion you are the one making this article POV. I know that you are great in waving with all kinds of links, essays and policies, but that does not make your editing neutral. The way you act here is similar as the working of a bulldozer. And to prevent long discussions, I just reverted your work. Sorry when that hurts your feelings. The Banner talk 16:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The Banner, I guess appreciate your honesty in saying that you reverted my edits to prevent more discussion, but do you see how that supports my original point in this thread? Alexbrn, one thing that keeps making me put off the RFC is that I'm stuck trying to think of a well-worded question that will elicit constructive, concrete, on-topic responses. I guess one very concrete issue would be address the statements about biomedical information by Ogden and Nitschke that are sourced to primary and/or self-published material that some of us feel fall under Identifying reliable sources/Medical content and others feel are fine to include since they're sourced to experts and/or since the statements are attributed. Is that too narrow? On the other hand, "Is this article NPOV?" seems too broad. Can anyone link to an example from a previous RFC about NPOV issues that had a good lead off question? PermStrump(talk) 16:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The article does not "seem too broad" to me. YMMV 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say the article is too broad. I said I don't want the question for the RFC to be too broad or too narrow. PermStrump(talk) 16:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I have seen a tendency to policy waving and walls of text, without making really clear where the article is not neutral and needs editing. It is okay when you want a discussion about every comma and point (or every little detail) but that is again not making the article neutral. The Banner talk 17:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)