One-thousand, two-hundred eighteen dead. The lives of families devastated. Sixty-eight years of debate about a suicide barrier. Today, The Chronicle begins a seven-part series looking at the darker side of the Golden Gate Bridge. The conclusion is inescapable: A suicide barrier would prevent deaths.
I'm not sure of the logic in that. There are many other ways people commit suicide... Perhaps they're not all as dramatic or as romanticized, but there's plenty of attention-getting options.
I hardly think someone bent on offing themselves is going to stop and say, "Hey, maybe I shouldn't think my life is total crap because there's a barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge."
They'll likely just be diverted to some other place & other means of suicide.
But maybe that's all the barrier proponents really want -- to make these suicidal people someone else's problem, and sweep the issue off the bridge, and under the rug.
If they really want to help these suicidal people who go to the Golden Gate Bridge... Maybe instead of spending $2 million on a feasibility study, and heaven knows how much on actually putting up a barrier, they could spend that money putting a better suicide patrol on the bridge. That way, these people would more likely to be reached & helped during the intervention, rather than simply quietly diverted elsewhere to carry out their tragic schemes. As well as making the bridge generally safer for everyone.
But I think we, as a society, need to better understand, or at least better address, the phenomenon of suicide.
I'm no psychiatrist, but one thing I'm very certain about... suicide is definitely not just a "crime of opportunity".
People commit suicide because they are not happy with their lives, believe that their lives are not worth living... They are suffering, are terribly unhappy, believe (usually irrationally) that there's no hope for things better.
I believe it's usually a tragic illness that leads to suicide.
Yeah, of course people terminally ill or in chronic pain commit suicide, but more specifically, I'm talking about brain chemical imbalances, mental illnesses, clinical depression, alcoholism, and drug addiction.
I doubt people decide to end their lives because of a breath-taking vista, or because they get the idea that the waters will embrace them in a beautiful death. Unless they're seriously delusional - which again, is a psychiatric issue...
And can easily explain "The Werther Effect", "Grandeur", & "Joining the Herd".
Healthy, happy, rational, people don't suddenly think ending their life is a good idea because there's a "suicide landmark" of noteriety.
I myself was very much amazed by the beauty & grandeur of Yosemite National Park, but it didn't give me any urges to plunge to my death on the park grounds, nor have I gotten notions to do so either time I've been on Golden Gate Bridge. But people who are depressed get more mundane ideas of suicide, just about anywhere. Should we ban cars, streets, & highways, because a suicidal person might get the idea of running out into traffic or driving their car off the road?
In 1978 Seiden published a study of 515 people who were prevented from jumping off the bridge. He found that only 6 percent went on to kill themselves.
Yeah, because the intervention was likely a catalyst for that 94% to get some kind of help, or at least a prompt to take time to reconsider, and think more rationally about their decision. Not necessarily because they would not have done it any other way than on the Golden Gate Bridge.
And that's the problem. There's often not much of an intervention or incentive for people to get help, or even stop & take a reasonably logical stock of their situation.
Terminal illnesses like bipolar disorder, alcoholism or clinical depression do not generally have blatant symptoms like a tumor or a bleeding wound.
They also have a very bad social stigma attached to them. Stuff like this seems to be treated as more shameful than AIDS, among the broad scope of society.
Jose Maldonado, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford, says suicide "is one of those things people don't talk about, especially when it has to do with matters of pride, especially with people in your own family. That can be extrapolated to society at large. People in San Francisco don't want to talk about suicide in their own city."
So while people would urge their loved ones to go to a doctor if they saw a growth on their arm, or would rush their friend to the ER if they had a bleeding wound -- the same people are slow to suggest their comrade might have a drinking problem, or ask their friend if they're feeling hopeless & urge them to see a psychiatrist.
Indeed, it's an insult in our culture to suggest to someone their booze intake is unusual or harmful, or that they might benefit from "professional help".
So when it comes to serious health issues, like drug addiction or mental illness; the person themselves, as well as those around them, seem doomed to glossing things over in denial, or simply pretending everything's normal.
Putting up a barrier on a bridge, in my opinion, will do little more than to just shove these people's deaths into further obscurity.
It'd be a diversion, not prevention.
And I think this is an inaccurate and unfair comparison...
Whereas officials at the Eiffel Tower, Empire State Building and other suicide landmarks recognized a crisis and erected suicide barriers, the Golden Gate Bridge still offers a welcome mat to someone in search of a quick exit.
People jumping off the Eiffel Tower & the Empire State Building, have a very good chance of potentially harming other people & destruction of property, a lot more than someone jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge into open water. There's also probably a lot less area to cover with a barrier on those structures than on the Golden Gate Bridge.
So let's not make it sound like San Francisco doesn't give a shit about the suicide issue, while NYC & Paris are oh-so-much-more concerned about the lives of suicidal people.
I'm not necessarily saying "don't put up a barrier on Golden Gate Bridge".
But I'm wondering if it's really the best way San Francisco, or anyone, can spend money.
I am very skeptical of the motives, and of the reasoning behind the stated motives.
And I happen to think better education, more social awareness, and better mental healthcare is far wiser than trying to toddler-proof everything in the world that's potentially deadly only to the willfully self-destructive.
If there were a lot of cases of accidental deaths off the Golden Gate Bridge, then I'd think there was a safety crisis.
But this isn't a safety issue.
It's a public health issue.
And suicide barriers, gun bans, & blunted butter knives aren't going to make sick people well.
posted by Chloe | Thursday 03 November 2005 5:27 AM
There seems to be a lot of people insisting that there's more suicides on the Bay side of the bridge because of the view of the bay, and the view of the open ocean is daunting to jumpers. But I hardly think that's a big factor. The bay side is the pedestrian walkway, the open ocean side is the bike path... I'm willing to bet that there's a sign that states it's required to have a bike on the bike path. And I imagine a lot of people would factor that into their suicide plan - that if they were on the bike path without a bike, they might attract attention of authorities before they got to a jumping point. And I think a lot of jumpers probably either don't have a bike, or if they do, they don't feel comfortable about abandoning it on the bridge when they jump. People are particular about their belongings, even in death, or wills wouldn't be so popular.
Posted by Chloe | Thursday 03 November 2005 8:36PM
I just don't get jumpers. Honestly, there's a very good chance that you won't actually kill yourself, and infact will just make your life even more miserable. But, a shotgun in the mouth, now there is a permanent way to go. Now playing in my head: Scene from "Bringing Out the Dead" where Nicholas Cage goes off on wannabe suicide victim for not going through with it.
Posted by Tim Pintsch | Friday 04 November 2005 10:56AM
Well, supposedly jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge has a 98% fatality rate. I think that's a better success rate than condoms for birth control. Though I don't know how it stacks up against all other methods of suicide.
I imagine acquiring a gun might seem like too much trouble to someone suicidal that doesn't already have one. I'm willing to bet (though not to pay up -heh) that a lot, if not most, gunshot suicides involve a gun the person already had acquired before their suicide plans, for unrelated reasons.
Although I did hear (by word of mouth, not sure when this happened), about an incident in this area (somewhere outside of Scranton), where a guy went into a gun shop, asked to see a gun, loaded it, and took himself out right there in the gun shop.
I've never seen Bringing Out the Dead. But Tim, I'm starting to get the impression you watch a lot of movies, even more movies than myself. haha.
I've never really understood suicide. I could never even begin to imagine the depth of emotion (or lack there of) one must be feeling to end it all.
One thing I do know for sure, suicide is by no means a crime of opportunity...for anyone to even think that it just insanity in my book. What is wrong with people?!
Posted by Lee Ann | Friday 04 November 2005 8:02PM
I can't fathom suicide either. (Or dying in any way at this point!)
But I've known people who have been suicidal, and it seems to be a progressive thing... It's not out of the blue. Even my friend who's a psychiatrist says that people just don't snap. Generally people start thinking of a suicide plan long before they ever even attempt suicide, and usually start contemplating it long before they even come up with a plan.
Which is why I think a suicide barrier on a bridge will merely take away that particular option as a potential suicide plan.
I can't help but sense, in that article, the general attitude that a suicide barrier on the bridge will prevent a bunch of deaths of people who just happened to get the supposedly 'cool' idea of jumping off the bridge, but wouldn't have otherwise committed suicide. And that is ridiculous. But it seems to be the basis for their argument. And if that is the basis for their argument, they're being disingenuous, or at best, they are clueless.
And I imagine they might be that clueless. I can imagine that it might be easier to perceive these suicide jumpers as nutty seeking some kind of bizarre glory. And even if that is the case (it might be with some), again, it suggests the delusion of mental illness. But I can see how it might be easier for people to criminalize suicide, perceive it as a "them" problem to be controlled somehow, than to accept the reality of mental illness as part of the human condition, and try to understand and work at the problem from the root.
Of course it's also part of the human condition to often ignore the wisdom of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" regarding many issues, and most particularly regarding medical issues.
I don't exclude myself from this observation.
Posted by Chloe | Saturday 05 November 2005 12:26AM
I'm bipolar, and I've felt suicidal in the past. That doesn't make me an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but it does lend me a personal perspective to this debate - which may or may not be useful, but anyway...
I think, Chloe, that you have a very good sense of the whole picture. People don't become suicidal because the bridge is there. But, putting barriers up -- of any kind -- can be something that saves someone's life. For example, I don't keep a gun in my home, and never will. This isn't because I'm philosophically opposed to guns or whatever; it's because I am trying to put up a "safety barrier" of sorts. When you know that during a really bad depressive episode a gun might start sounding like a really good idea... well, you put up a barrier so you can't do anything like that -- you eliminate guns from the equation altogether. That's just an example, but my point is that even for a suicidal person who is ill and needs help, even placing the smallest impediment in their path, making it even a little harder for them to go through with it, can help save their life.
That said, $2 million for a "feasibility" study seems ridiculous. Either put up a barrier or don't. But don't waste $2 million -- money that could be better used, as you suggested, either to place patrols on the bridge, or (here's a thought!) to fund suicide help lines and mental illness programs -- studying it, for hell's sake.
You mentioned that the 94% who didn't commit suicide likely recovered because the aborted jump was a catalyst for some sort of intervention. That's got to be absolutely true, I would think. But then again, that intervention is still kind of like a barrier -- a human one as opposed to a physical one, but still it's at its essence placing something (another person, medication, counseling) in between a person and their impulses. That's what prevents suicides.
If you put up a barrier and then supplement that effort with increased efforts to help people before and after they walked onto that bridge, then they'd save lives. Without those other efforts, all they'll effectively do is remove the bridge as an option -- just as you suggsted.
If San Francisco is really serious about the problem of suicide, they'd increase all those barriers. Any physical barriers on the Golden Gate would have to be accompanied by increased foot patrols, better public education about mental illness to remove the stigma from it among both sufferers and non-sufferers alike, increased resources for the mentally ill (more hotlines, more low-or-no-cost mental health clinics, more education to the public on how to recognize warning signs, etc.
If they don't, then they're just worried about the aesthetics.
Posted by Curmudgeon | Sunday 06 November 2005 9:29AM
Curmudgeon: But then again, that intervention is still kind of like a barrier -- a human one as opposed to a physical one, but still it's at its essence placing something (another person, medication, counseling) in between a person and their impulses. That's what prevents suicides. If you put up a barrier and then supplement that effort with increased efforts to help people before and after they walked onto that bridge, then they'd save lives.
Yes, the patrols intervening is a "barrier" of sorts. But if there's a permanent physical barrier on the bridge, then suicidal people won't even go there in the first place, they will instead choose a suicide venue where perhaps there's not only no physical barrier, but no patrols either, and they will succeed, without ever having the opportunity of being intervened.
That's why I think increased suicide patrols would be more effective in preventing suicides than putting the physical barrier in and just forgetting about suicidal people.
The existence of a physical barrier on the bridge won't be a personal intervention for a suicidal person, like another human being despoiling their attempt & talking to them, and getting them some professional help, would be. It would just make them rule out the bridge as an option.
If you see what I mean.
"If they don't, then they're just worried about the aesthetics."
Personally, I think they're just concerned with sweeping suicide off the bridge and further under the rug. And looking to ruin aesthetics for everyone else in the process -- the unobstructed view from the footpath on the bridge for everyone who's not willfully self-destructive.
As far as someone with the potential for suicidal thoughts deciding not to keep a gun in their house... I've heard other people say the same thing. But then, it sounds like someone who would make that decision, has already had some kind of intervention of some type, or at least an awareness that there's a potential problem. That's not an outside force (barrier) preventing people from purchasing and keeping a gun. So I'm not sure it relates.
Though it's an interesting point of which much of the general public probably isn't aware. So thanks for mentioning it.
The person who told me the story about the gun shop with lax security where that suicide took place also mentioned something along the same lines - about people not keeping hand guns in their home for that reason, but then being able to go to that gun shop on a whim - which is what apparently happened. (Though I'm not sure that the person who committed suicide had decided not to keep a handgun in their home for that reason. I don't really know anything about the person & that incident, other than what was told to me by someone who had worked with the man who committed suicide there.)
Comment Avatar icons by Gravatar.
E-mail addresses are required, but not displayed nor shared.
Please post comments relevant to this page only. For off-topic comments, questions, and discussion, please use this site's Message Board Forum. All comments posted that are spam, abusive, use phoney e-mail, or that do not relate directly to the page, will be removed.
Thank you for respecting this site, author & readers, and for helping stem the flow of ridiculously inaccurate hits from search engines.
superficiality >>If the facade is what's important to you, all you wind up with is an illusion. Disillusionment is the gift of substance.
-- Chloe<<
(more)
There seems to be a lot of people insisting that there's more suicides on the Bay side of the bridge because of the view of the bay, and the view of the open ocean is daunting to jumpers. But I hardly think that's a big factor. The bay side is the pedestrian walkway, the open ocean side is the bike path... I'm willing to bet that there's a sign that states it's required to have a bike on the bike path. And I imagine a lot of people would factor that into their suicide plan - that if they were on the bike path without a bike, they might attract attention of authorities before they got to a jumping point. And I think a lot of jumpers probably either don't have a bike, or if they do, they don't feel comfortable about abandoning it on the bridge when they jump. People are particular about their belongings, even in death, or wills wouldn't be so popular.
I just don't get jumpers. Honestly, there's a very good chance that you won't actually kill yourself, and infact will just make your life even more miserable. But, a shotgun in the mouth, now there is a permanent way to go. Now playing in my head: Scene from "Bringing Out the Dead" where Nicholas Cage goes off on wannabe suicide victim for not going through with it.
I've never really understood suicide. I could never even begin to imagine the depth of emotion (or lack there of) one must be feeling to end it all.
One thing I do know for sure, suicide is by no means a crime of opportunity...for anyone to even think that it just insanity in my book. What is wrong with people?!
I'm bipolar, and I've felt suicidal in the past. That doesn't make me an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but it does lend me a personal perspective to this debate - which may or may not be useful, but anyway...
