Talk:Suicide bag/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Hypercapnic alarm response

Ratel, Your recent edit to the lead equates the hypercapnic arousal response, (a response to hypercapnia during normal sleep, a condition which does not equate to hypoxic loss of consciousness), to the disputed term hypercapnic alarm response Please quote the passage in the cited source which supports this conclusion.

Furthermore, the request to clarify whether the disputed term refers to panic, sense of suffocation and struggling during unconsciousness (my emphasis) and cite this claim has not been answered, but the request for clarification has been removed. I am going to replace the request and ask you to clarify before removing it again.

In the absence of evidence I will remove the disputed content from the lead. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I read the reference to hypercapnic alarm response in the Peaceful Pill Handbook page 45, and it makes no reference to struggling while unconscious, and the hypercapnic alarm response mentioned there is the effect of moderately high blood carbon dioxide on the conscious person, an effect known to anyone who has held their breath for a minute or two. I consider the book to have been misrepresented in the lead, and will edit accordingly. Please do not revert without sufficient evidence. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your edits or your clarifications. I think others may object to the depth in which you explore some of the physiological issues in an article about a bag, but we'll see what happens. Ratel (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I consider the article to be about more than the physical object. The scope based on section headings suggests that it is about the method of suicide, including the physical characteristics of the bag, history, ethics, research etc. What actually happens is relevant, and the information provided should be accurate, reliable and neutral. I identified aspects which were dubious, and am working on clarifying and improving the accuracy. A lot of the background could theoretically be covered by other articles, but I find that Wikipedia is currently somewhat lacking in several of the possible links, so I will fill in here until I run out of relevant material. As it happens I am trying not to go into excessive detail, and only mention things that I consider directly relevant to an accurate and informed understanding of the method from the points of view of all interested parties. Please feel welcome to discuss the relevance, accuracy or any perceived bias in my edits. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Not noticing any bias, Peter, and wish you well with the task. I think you have improved the article already, and I welcome the extra detail, although if you look at the history of this article you'll see several attempts to stubbify it in preparation for a deletion drive, so let's hope that does not happen again. Ratel (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that the criticism attributed to Kleespies appears to have been grossly misrepresented. I will be changing that when I have worked out how best to represent his opinions in the context. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree completely with your edit, wanted to make that change myself but did not want to provoke edit wars with prior editors :¬) Ratel (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

What I have stated is my best shot at a completely neutral report of Kleespies' opinions in that paper. If anyone wishes to dispute, they may refer to the article and explain why they think I may have misinterpreted it. I am amenable to reason and logic. Not so much to bluster and rhetoric, and I do not engage in edit wars. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the article as it stands is neutral, relevant, well referenced, and covers the subject quite well. There is no reasonable doubt that it is a notable topic. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Failed attemps reference

There is a line in the article that says: "There are also documented cases of suicide attempts using the suicide bag that failed." (latest version of the article consulted 3rd Oct 2018) And is supported by a journal article: Deaths involving natural gas inhalation. I have not read the article due to having a paywall, but the title of the cited article talks about "natural gas". So this arouses suspicious that the failed attempts cases might be from inhaling natural gas, not inert gas, which are something different. As this article covers only "inert gas asphyxiation" (as the Wikipedia article's first line/definition explains), it might be removed if proven inappropriate to the WP article's theme.

Someone with access to the article should check it and for future reference include a |cite= excerpt supporting the statement.--Hienafant (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

B-class review

B

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. Looks like most statements have already survived challenge. Y The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. Could use some information on prognosis if interrupted, More statistcs would be nice, but not essential, otherwise looks fairly complete. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. Looks OK to me, so rating as OK unless someone has better ideas. Order can be changed easily if there is good reason.Y The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Looks good to me. Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The one illustration is to the point and of adequate quality. No copyright issues. Y The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Looks fine to me. Y

I only see the lack of a prognosis after interruption as needed for B-class. Other opinions welcome. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where to put this edit - so will put it here.

The mention of Argon as an inert gas usable with a suicide bag is incorrect and misunderstands how a suicide bag works. Argon will not work.

The references available here and in the peaceful pill handbook (re inert gas/suicide bag) and in the literature are all for Helium and nitrogen for completed suicides. These gases are less dense than air.

For the inert gas/suicide bag, it is necessary that the inert gas be lighter (less dense) than air, so that it fills the bag from the closed top down to the (slightly) open neck of the bag, and as it is continually piped in, it continues to exclude any air or (even denser) CO2 by pushing it down and out of the open neck of the bag.

This keeps any room air out of the bag, and also forces any CO2 out of the bag also as the inert gas flows.

This works with less dense(than air) Helium and Nitrogen - but does not work with Argon.

Argon is heavier /denser than air. It will fall directly out the (slightly) open neck of the bag rather than rising to be trapped by the closed end of the bag. It will therefore not fill the bag from the top and then push out air / CO2. As the Argon spills out the bag opening, room air will rise into the bag in its place and and will be trapped by the closed end of the bag. A pocket of air will thus be continually formed/drawn into the bag as the heavier argon spills out the bottom. This will not result in fatal suffocation.

There is two references only that I can find of the attempted use of Argon and a suicide bag - first one non fatal though it was left for an undetermined time but long enough for condensation to form on the bag, so much longer than one quick breath + 10-15 minutes as for Helium or nitrogen.

The second one also non fatal - presumed "insufficient gas duration" ...

(1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352260222_Suicide_Attempt_by_Inhalation_of_Argon_Gas

(2) Tincu, R.C.; Cobilinschi, C.; Tomescu, D.; Ghiorghiu, Z.; Macovei, R.A. (2016). Suicide attempt after argon gas inhalation – Case report. Toxicology Letters, 258(), S109–. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.06.1454

It is well known that even a slight amount of an air "leak" is all that is required to defeat the purpose of the inert gas / suicide bag - as is seen when facemasks were tried instead of a bag. Non airtight fitting face masks have been used ( and failed ) to try to achieve the same objective. A 15 gauge needle sized gap is enough to frustrate their intended use.

How the single reference of a suicide bag with (very) heavy/denser than air - propane/butane might work is different since this is not an inert gas but is toxic in itself ( similar to Carbon monoxide) and does not require the complete exclusion of oxygen to cause injury. Riomhaire1 (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)