San Franciscans Try Again to Suicide-Proof the Golden Gate Bridge – New York Times (free reg. req’d)
It enrages me that the Golden Gate Bridge has no barrier to stop people from committing suicide. 69 years after the bridge was built, and a conservative estimate of 1200 people have died while jumping off of it, the people in charge of the bridge are still debating what type of fence to install (or whether to install one at all) to help try and reduce this number significantly.
Suicide barriers are commonplace since the late 1960’s and 1970’s on nearly every public monument, bridge, and other place where people have shown a consistent pattern of behavior of using the place to take their own lives. Most city councils and state governments have had this debate decades ago and erred on the side of public safety and the value and sanctity of human life.
But not San Francisco.
In a world where everything is just a little different from the values of the rest of the country, the city apparently believes that an unobstructed tourist view is more important than human life.
I say unobstructed because the type of iron-wrought-like fence used for most suicide barriers is simple, effective, and keeps the view largely as is. I say “tourist” because by and large, the vast majority of bridge pedestrians are tourists, not locals. Those who drive on the bridge in their cars rarely glance at the view anyways, unless their sitting at the backed up tolls.
That there are even opponents (and doctors, at that!) to something that will help reduce human suffering and the amount of human carnage caused by the bridge speaks volumes about how wacky some people’s values are.
Opponents argue that a suicide barrier’s unsightly railings, nets, or some combination thereof would mar the beauty of an Art Deco design marvel. Moreover, antibarrier forces say, would-be jumpers prevented from hurling themselves off the Golden Gate would simply find another location, like the Bay Bridge, which is nearby.
The opponents also point out that only about 3 percent of all people who commit suicide in the Bay Area do so by leaping from the Golden Gate.
Clark D. Hinderleider, a cardiac surgeon who lives in Marin County, across the bridge from San Francisco, has been outspoken in his opposition to the barrier.
“No one has ever shown any statistic how this would impact the general trend of suicides in the metropolitan area,” Dr. Hinderleider said, adding that the only way to truly stop suicides at the Golden Gate would be by “preventing people from going on the bridge.”
Excuse me? There are hundreds of bridges throughout the United States that have suicide barriers — otherwise known as a higher fence. If your goal is to reduce suicides (stopping them 100% seems a goal better suited for a fantasy, ideal world), a simple tall fence (which can be architecturally similar to any well-designed suicide barrier, such as those found on the Eiffel Tower and the Empire State Building), will work.
That a doctor could even argue, with a straight face, that this would somehow ruin the bridge is sad to me. It shows the short-sightedness of some people, that these people’s lives aren’t worth the cost of an unobstructed view.
Cost. Right… How much is a person’s life worth? Apparently less than $15 million to $25 million:
The cost of a barrier is estimated at $15 million to $25 million, money that barrier opponents say could be better spent elsewhere.
It’s a sad day for the people of San Francisco that they remain so behind the times in a supposedly liberal city.
San Francisco — Put the suicide barrier in place and help save people’s lives. Not 10 years from now, but get it started today.
(9 votes, average: 3.11 out of 5)
Loading ...You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Links to This Article
Voip WebLog » Blog Archive » New York Times - Editorial: Three School Shootings (7/22/2007)
From Psych Central's World of Psychology:
Suicide Barriers are Effective - World of Psychology (7/10/2008)
From Psych Central's World of Psychology:
Golden Gate Bridge To Get a Suicide Net - World of Psychology (10/10/2008)
15 Comments to
“What do San Franciscans Value? The View or Human Life?”
We have a similar situation in Vancouver with the Lions Gate Bridge. Police response does prevent most jumpers but it’s not a regular patrol and deaths still occur. But a barrier is hotly opposed by those who work to preserve the iconic and much-beloved Art Deco structure.
Ironically, it’s the beauty of these bridges that makes them appealing.
It’s unfair to say that “the people of San Francisco” oppose a suicide barrier on the GG Bridge. The NYT article says,
“The editorial board of The San Francisco Chronicle, which ran a seven-part series on the suicides last fall, supports a barrier.”
You can read the entire 7 part series here:
http://www.sfgate.com/lethalbeauty/
NYT again: The debate was also given new fuel in early 2005, when the filmmaker Eric Steel announced that he had captured more than a dozen Golden Gate jumpers in action as he shot a documentary, “The Bridge.”
You might also be interested in the film, The Joy of Life, by Jenni Olsen: http://www.joyoflifemovie.com/
Her close friend, Mark Finch, committed suicide by jumping off the bridge. She has been a fervent advocate for a barrier,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/14/EDGSMAPFFA1.DTL
I said “the people of San Francisco” because the board of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District is appointed by the governmental entities surrounding the bridge (mainly San Francisco and the counties of Marin and Sonoma). Our government is elected by the people to carry out the people’s business, so yes, when the government makes a decision, it’s fair to say that it represents the views of the people that elected it.
FYI, the current board is made up of the following people (according to their 2005 Annual Report) responsible for the current foot-dragging on building a simple fence to save lives:
Maureen Middlebrook, President, Sonoma County
John Moylan, 1st Vice President, City and County of San Francisco3
Albert J. Boro, 2nd Vice President, Marin County
City and County of San Francisco
Tom Ammiano
Bevan Dufty
Sabrina Hernández
Jake McGoldrick
Janet Reilly
Gerardo Sandoval
Leah C. Shahum
Sonoma County
Mike Kerns
Michael F. Martini
Marin County
Harold C. Brown
Cynthia L. Murray
J. Dietrich Stroeh
Napa County
Barbara L. Pahre
Mendocino County
James C. Eddie
Del Norte County
Gerald D. Cochran
And “the people of America” elected George Bush. Would you like to take the blame for that?
I know who my elected supervisors are, you don’t need to tell me. Finally, it’s nice to know that you’re so sensitive in your dealings with depressed people. How comforting!
I was clarifying the use of the term that you called into question. I’m sorry you understood that to mean something else.
Yes, about half of the people in America voted for George Bush.
We can’t exactly blame France or England, or some other country
for who we have as President.
I don’t really think we can make the world safe from terrorists.
We can’t prevent all of the suffering, death, disease, etc. in the
world. We live for a while, then we die. At a time of our own choosing,
or some other time, death is a part of being alive.
Believing that we can control all of these things is a sure set-up for
frustration, anger, depression, etc. I don’t want to live in a world
that is suicide proof. I don’t even want to try to imagine what that
would be like.
John Grohol is archetypal of the unrestrained nescience and strident irrationality so pervasive in those who think a bridge barrier is a “moral imperative.” Apparently whence Grohol got his “Psy.D.” does not teach physics. In the list of criteria for the barrier wind stability is very important; therefore the preliminary testing is essential for safety of all bridge users. The fact that Grohol talks about the “view” instead of the structural integrity demonstrates that he does not understand the concept of engineering. In any case, if the proponents of the physical barrier would spend this time, energy and money on the compassionate care of patients with suicide prevention methodology, the barrier could be unnecessary.
It is sad that these people feel their professional efficacy is so lacking.
That Grohol gives not a scintilla of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of a physical barrier to be more than the current rate of prevention of 80% points to the deficit in his thought process. One author notes “….the lack of clear scientific evidence unequivocally proving that the construction of barriers on the [bridge] has resulted causally in an absolute reduction in the number and rate of suicides…” Grohol says that “hundreds of bridges have suicide barriers” which is just not true. A search by SPRC and SIEC identified only a very few. If Grohol has this list of sites and the associated data showing their effectiveness, he should share it with the community. If not, then he should educate himself, for which purpose one appends some references. Thence his comments would not be so foolish.
Clark D. Hinderleider, M.D., Ph.D.
Secretary, Clinician-Scientists for the Public’s Weal
Instructor of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, CUNY
Clinical Adjunct, Department of Physiology
Contributing Editor, Science Advisory Board
Member, The Learning Curve International Advisory Board
Member; Center on Science, Technology, and Space; Roosevelt Institution
Member, Union of Concerned Scientists
Member, Congressional Liaison Committee (JSCPP)
Email: CLARKMDPH@aol.com
References
Baldessarini, RJ, “Suicide Risk and Treatments for Patients with Bipolar Disorder,” JAMA, 290:1517, 2003
Beautrais, AL, Effectiveness pf barriers at suicide jumping sites: a case study,” Aust N Z J Psychiatry,35(5): 557, 2001
Berman, A.L. (ed.), “Effectiveness of Bridge Barriers,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 24(1):89,1994
Cantor, CH, et al., “Suicide and related behaviour from river bridges,” British Journal of Psychiatry,155:829, 1989
“Community suicide prevention: the effectiveness of bridge barriers,” Suicide Life Threat Behav, 24(1): 89, 1994 Spring
Injury Center, CDC, Prevention of and Intervention in suicide, 5 Aug 04
Joiner, T, Why People Die by Suicide, Harvard Univ Press: Cambridge, 2005
Mann, JJ, et al., “Suicide Prevention Stratégies. A systematic review,” JAMA, 294:2064, 2005
De Moore, GM, “Suicide Attempts by Firearms and by Leaping from Heights” American Journal of
Psychiatry, 156:1425, 1999
Reish, T, et al., “Securing a Suicide Hot Spot. Effects of a safety net at the Bern Muenster,” Suicide and
Life-Threatening Behavior, 35(4):460, 2005
USPHS, The Surgeon General’s Call To Action To Prevent Suicide, Washington, D.C., 2001
Thank you for the references, many of which demonstrate how effective suicide barriers (otherwise known as “fences”) are — which is *very*. They save lives, plain and simple. What the number is isn’t nearly as important as the fact that someone is alive today because it was there — politicians didn’t spend years or even *decades* (as they have done with the Golden Gate Bridge) debating the issue. I’ve appended a few of my own.
Evidence is important, but it shouldn’t prevent us from taking action now. I wonder if we’d have suicide hotlines today if you were the person making the decision about them in your community back in the 1960’s? “Well, there’s no evidence to support that a telephone hotline will actually help anyone, so why institute one? There’s costs, risk factors, liability issues… I mean, who needs that?!” Or telephone hotlines on bridges (of which, the Golden Gate luckily sports). We have a great deal of evidence, luckily, which shows that fences on bridges reduce the number of people who try and take their own lives.
Most bridges in most states where there is pedestrian traffic require fences of a certain height and type to prevent people from climbing over them. Sometimes this is nothing more than a modified chain-link fence. It is effective as a deterrant to the person who makes an impulsive decision (as most people who are that suicidal often are). I quote,
Similarly, the fact that suicidal crisis are very often short-lived (and, what is more, influenced by ambivalence or impulsiveness) suggests that an individual with restricted access to a given means would not put off his plans to later or turn to alternative methods [emphasis mine] (Daigle, 2005).
The problem is obvious. Some people in the area of the bridge treat it as something more than it is. Yes, it’s a beautiful bridge, and yes, you need to be certain that whatever method proposed doesn’t affect its structure. But my understanding is that we’ve been down this road before and engineering studies have already been done in the past on various forms of barriers, have they not? I mean, this is not a *new* issue, is it Clark? It’s been discussed for decades.
To the rest of the world, it just appears as foot-dragging for no legitimate reason. And I say “legitimate reason” when weighed against the price of human life.
References
Beautrais, A.L. (2001). Effectiveness pf barriers at suicide jumping sites: a case study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry, 35(5), 557. (“Removal of safety barriers led to an immediate and substantial increase in both the numbers and rate of suicide by jumping from the bridge in question.”)
Cantor, C.H. & Hill, M.A. (1990). Suicide from river bridges. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 24(3), 377-80. (To address the argument that people will just turn to the Bay Bridge to jump, “This suggests that persons prevented from jumping from one bridge, for example by a barrier, will not automatically jump from the alternative bridge although a minority may do so.”)
Daigle, M.S. (2005). Suicide prevention through means restriction: Assessing the risk of substitution: A critical review and synthesis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol 37(4), 625-632.
Gunnell, D. & Nowers, M. (1997). Suicide by jumping. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, Vol 96(1), 1-6.
Lindqvist, P; Jonsson, A; Eriksson, A. (2004). Are suicides by jumping off bridges preventable? An analysis of 50 cases from Sweden. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol 36(4), 691-694.
Seiden, R.H. & Spence, M.C. (1982). A tale of two bridges: Comparative suicide incidence on the Golden Gate and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridges. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, Vol 3(1), 32-40.
I am familiar with your references, some of which are the very same which one had quoted. However, your bent toward advocacy has influenced your interpretation of these. As a clinician-scientist, one must caution you that anecdotal experience and unsupported supposition by authors have no weight as scientific evidence. Quoting out of context is not convincing to a cognizant observer. The proponents never cite statistics from the MSA regarding suicides, as it would not support their cause, which is based in local politics and egos rather than in public health and concern for patients. Only one out of 147 references cited a bridge. Opponents of the barrier state correctly that suicide prevention should be done long before the trip to the bridge. Again, the need for a physical barrier is just a reminder of the failure of the mental health professionals to do a proper job. Mann et al. and others talk about limiting access to means, which is in reference to firearms and poisons. Nevertheless, in a year it remains that only one out of five attempts results in completion, one out of 500,000 visitors to and one out of 1,500,00 transits of the bridge.
You mention about telephones on the bridge, and there is evidence, both from the GG Bridge and elsewhere [personal communication, v.i.] that they are effective. You also cite the time factor. As one noted previously, you do not have a clear concept of engineering. The GG Bridge is suspension bridge, of whose structural integrity must be a constant in any equation. Proposals in the past have proven to render the bridge unstable. Need one remind you of the vintage film of a similar structure in Washington state which was destroyed by its instability in the wind. Do you propose to force the issue, even if the bridge is destroyed? One does not agree, nor do the hundreds of thousands who use the bridge for which it was built. An additional and complicating issue is the installation of a median barrier, a priority due to the number of people killed and injured, greatly overtaking the number of suicides.
The matter of a physical barrier should be addressed by evidence based examination not by blatant use of emotions. To frame this debate in terms of the value of a single human life is to admit that the proponents have no rational arguments and are failures in their duty to public health tenets outlined by the Surgeon General.
Clark D. Hinderleider, M.D., Ph.D.
Secretary, Clinician-Scientists for the Public’s Weal
Instructor of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, CUNY
Clinical Adjunct, Department of Physiology
Contributing Editor, Science Advisory Board
Member, The Learning Curve International Advisory Board
Member; Center on Science, Technology, and Space; Roosevelt Institution
Member, Union of Concerned Scientists
Member, Congressional Liaison Committee (JSCPP)
References:
Chen, Y-Y, “Female Suicide in the US, “Presentation, APA Meeting, 22 May 2006.
Glatt, KM, “Effectivness of Bridge Phones,” Dutchess County Department of Mental Hygiene, March 1999
Mohr, DC, et al., “Telephone-administered psychotherapy for depression,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 62:1007, 2005
De Moore, GM, “Suicide Attempts by Firearms and by Leaping from Heights” AmericanJournal of Psychiatry, 156:1425, 1999
Suominen, K, et al., “Completed Suicide after a Suicide Attempt: A 37 Year Follow-UpStudy,” AJP, 161:562, 2004
USPHS, The Surgeon General’s Call To Action To Prevent Suicide, Washington, D.C., 2001
I will assume you were quoted out of context in the New York Times piece, or quoted very selectively. Because the only concerns attributed directly to you were that you weren’t convinced that a suicide barrier would effectively cut down the suicide rate on the bridge. We’ve both provided a wealth of references and evidence that shows that on bridges where suicide barriers (e.g., a fence) were erected, suicide rates fell, and where barriers were removed, suicide rates went up. That is evidence enough for any reasonable person.
Unless San Francisco lives in an alternative universe where data and statistics from studies don’t apply, this seems to directly contradict your concerns and argument about the barrier, as quoted in the New York Times article above.
As for your continuing engineering concerns, I leave that to the engineers to answer. The fact remains that in every case where people have identified a suicide magnet (whether it was a bridge, a tower, or a building), they have successfully engineered and erected safe suicide barriers that do not endanger the engineering of the original structure. In this day and age, I have no doubt such a barrier can be safely erected on this bridge as well. (As for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge failure in 1940, while extraordinary, has little to do with this issue; it was built as a suspension bridge with no appreciation for air current dynamics where and when it was build. Engineers now have that knowledge, and have had it for the past 66 years.)
It is also telling that Hinderleider ignores what has derailed all previous attempts at a suicide barrier in the past — cost, aesthetics, and effectiveness. Notice how engineering was never a concern in the past. Not because the board didn’t appreciate that it was a concern, they just understood that if they approved a plan, the engineers would find a way to implement it safey and effectively.
Opponents of the barrier have taken a new tact — emphasize the engineering hurdle and whether such a barrier would be effective. (Cost is always a concern with any project in the public eye.) Again, you can’t prove a negative — you can’t show a barrier would be effective until it is erected. (There are creative ways to address this issue, but of course opponents are just happy to question the effectiveness without actually concerning themselves with finding ways to prove it.)
But at the heart of opposition to any suicide barrier is aesthetics. To the board that must approve any barrier, the bridge is not just a bridge, but an American icon. The landmark bridge is a tourist draw and attraction. Anything that may mar the beauty of the bridge is given short attention.
As for bridge priorities and costs, that’s also a matter of local politics, not what deserves the most attention due to the loss of human life. In October 2003, the bridge built a $5 million bicycle barrier even though no bicyclist has ever been killed. Every expenditure on bicycle and median barriers is portrayed as a “public safety issue,” while every mention of a suicide barrier becomes an “engineering issue” or “effectiveness issue.” It’s amazing how you can sway the public argument by just repeating the same phrases over and over again. It makes me wonder, though, were “effectiveness studies” done on the bicycle barrier before it was built?
This issue was last brought up in 1997, nearly a decade ago, when the board last commissioned engineering studies on a design. It appears that when the public eye is focused on this issue, the board takes a little action, commissions yet another study, and waits for the public to be distracted by something else.
This time, the public won’t be distracted. The debate and focus will not die down.
For Further Reading
Friend, T. (2003). Jumpers. The New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031013fa_fact
Sanders, R. (1997). Golden Gate Bridge suicide barriers can be both effective and esthetic, say student-initiated studies at UC Berkeley. UC Berkeley.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/gate.html
Grohol’s circular arguments are becoming tedious: he is obviously unfamiliar with statistical or scientific methodology. The Times quoted me correctly; Grohol did not read it accurately: It quite clearly refers to the MSA. Let me give a simple example to illustrate the point. In the most recent breakdown of suicide statistics for San Francisco County three times as many people jumped to their death from structures other than the GG Bridge. If this is just about numbers to be saved, then the proponents need to identify these sites and alter them first. Then, if effective, there would be current statistics for the telling argument and more lives would be saved by this proven methodology. Grohol says, “Hinderleider ignores what has derailed all previous attempts at a suicide barrier in the past — cost, aesthetics, and effectiveness.” Not true, this is the effectiveness of which one speaks.
As for the engineering concerns, one is advised by expert opinion and refers Grohol to Mr. Mulligan’s comments in the record and to the minutes of many past meetings at which this issue is discussed. The aerodynamic considerations have always been a prime consideration. It is unfortunate that Grohol chooses to discuss matters about which he has no knowledge, but this SOP for the proponents who have nothing of substance to contribute to the deliberation.
The so-called “bicycle barrier” is a separation barrier between the hundreds of thousands of people who are using the bridge for which it was built—to cross a body of water. It is a matter of public safety as it is only this which separates them from vehicular traffic. It was tested to ensure it would not compromise the structural integrity of the bridge. Once again, Grohol does not have his facts in order.
The only distraction created is by the tragic spectacle put on at the board meetings. The organizers should be ashamed. But they know that reasoned argument and scientific facts may be obscured by the blatant theatre put on by these people. One will continue to strive to make sure sense and science prevail.
Clark D. Hinderleider, M.D., Ph.D.
Secretary, Clinician-Scientists for the Public’s Weal
Instructor of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, CUNY
Clinical Adjunct, Department of Physiology
Contributing Editor, Science Advisory Board
Member, The Learning Curve International Advisory Board
Member; Center on Science, Technology, and Space; Roosevelt Institution
Member, Union of Concerned Scientists
Member, Congressional Liaison Committee (JSCPP)
One person dies every fifteen days at the Golden Gate Bridge. The solution is simple raise the rail – or close the walkway. Over 1,500 are estimate to have died to date many have never been found so there is no true accounting.
The view that people will just go some where else does not stand the test of logic. Suicide is an impetuous act – 98% of those stopped never try it again.
Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
It is epidemic among teens that see the world as an impossible place to negotiate.
And if you can not get beyond that just think of the families that are forever ruined due to the horrible death of a loved one – the collateral damage is incalculable.
Would a sane society permit someone to leave a loaded gun in a psychiatric ward? Of course not –
The rail is too low its temptation too high and the apathy surrounding death at the Bridge to great.
Death at the Bridge is about the most horrible one could imagine. Victims usually drown in their own blood, screaming due to the pain from the loss of a limb or due to having their bones crushed at impact.
But their screams aren’t heard due as the water fills their lungs as they are washed out to sea never to be seen again.
One is finds it curious that the proponents of the GG Bridge barrier can not get their facts correct. Hines is the latest example of this. According to the latest statistics (7/25) from the Marin County coroner’s office 18 people have died by suicide, which represent .006% of the people yearly visiting the bridge for the purpose for which it was built.
The current literature show that about one-third of those with suicide attempts will repeat
such within one year; and 10% of these will be successful, with the risk persisting throughout the lifetime. In fact, the most important risk factor for suicide is a previous attempt.
Hines shares with Grohol his nescience of engineering: A fence can not just be raised on a suspension bridge without probable damage to the structural integrity of the bridge. This is the reason for testing of designs. Ignoring scientific facts does not further the proponents’ arguments.
It is quite appropriate that Hines talks about a “loaded gun´ in a psychiatric ward, not about leaving the window on the upper floor open. Mann et al. in their paper emphasize the prevention should include be both education of providers of care as well as restriction of means. Their “means” refer to the availability of firearms and deadly toxins. Out of 147 references only one refers to bridges and states, with the removing of an intervention “…the rate of suicide by jumping in the metropolitan area in question did not change…”
The unnecessarily graphic conclusion represents the caricaturing of a serious public heath problem, with callous disregard for the feelings of the families and friends of past victims.
Clark D. Hinderleider, M.D., Ph.D.
Secretary, Clinician-Scientists for the Public’s Weal
Instructor of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, CUNY
Clinical Adjunct, Department of Physiology
Contributing Editor, Science Advisory Board
Member, The Learning Curve International Advisory Board
Member; Center on Science, Technology, and Space; Roosevelt Institution
Member, Union of Concerned Scientists
Member, Congressional Liaison Committee (JSCPP)
With all due respect – the most elegant solution regarding death at the Golden Gate is to close the walkways. There is no commercial need – and unexplicably the Bridge Board recinded the toll that used to be charged for walking on the Bridge.
My depiction of death at the Bridge is information that might stop one person from jumping. The popular notion that death jumping from the Bridge is painless needs to be dispelled. The evidence is all too aparent in the Marin Coroner’s records. The San Francisco Chronicle’s web SFGATE.com also details the horror of death at the bridge. I am sorry if it is offensive to some but if the knowledge of what actually occurs stops just one person from electing to jump I belive it needs to be told.
The bridge is not broken, and we should not spend millions on an attempted technological “fix” that will ruin the bridge experience for hundreds of thousands of people for the sake of perhaps saving 18 lives in a year. Yes, let’s try to prevent suicide, and impulsive suicide on the bridge. No, a barrier is NOT the answer to this problem, and it is punishing the entire Bay Area and all its visitors for the sake of yet another poorly conceived knee-jerk policy. If we spent millions to build guardrails along every hiking trail, or put big rubber walls along every sidewalk to keep pedestrians from wandering into traffice, maybe we’d save the same number of lives–but at what expense? The bridge barrier will solve NOTHING and ruin one of the most stunningly beautiful landmarks in the world. Bad idea.
Join the Conversation! Post a Comment:
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 11 Aug 2006
