The answer, to most of us, is obvious.
Tom Keane, a freelance writer, believes however that bridges shouldn’t be suicide-proofed because he suggests it could make the problem worse. What problem — people jumping from bridges? No, suicide rates.
Generally when someone makes such a bold statement like this, they’ll have some pilot studies or other research that shows such a causal link — that in places where a bridge has no suicide barrier, the suicide rate is lower than in places that do.
Instead, Keane makes a circular argument based upon flawed logic. He doesn’t cite any academic or empirical research study that’s been done. He simply cite’s one state’s entire statewide suicide rate to make the claim about one single bridge in the state.
Keane, a savvy writer, also appeals to our emotions with a story about how bridges that don’t have barriers have increased human surveillance. But he cites only one example — the local Tobin bridge — where that is the case. Keane has no idea whether such increased surveillance is actually commonplace on bridges where suicide is popular. Of course suicide rates should be expected to go down with any type of intervention. A suicide barrier would make the rate drop even further, down to 0.
But Keane has answer to this — suicides are simply taking place elsewhere.
This contradicts what a lot of suicide survivors have said — a point of view Keane conveniently leaves out of his article. For instance, one of the proponents of the suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge is also one of the few survivors of jumping from the bridge due to suicide. He knows that the minute he let go, he didn’t want to die. Had a barrier been in place, that choice would’ve been taken away from him in the first place.
But, using Keane’s twisted logic, we shouldn’t do increased surveillance on bridges either, because people will just find another way to take their own lives. The suicide rate has dropped on the Tobin not because more people have been “caught” while attempting suicide, but because fewer people even try on the bridge, knowing that surveillance is in place.
I believe all of this is just smoke and mirrors, however, to Kean’s real issue with fences on bridges. His real issue appears to be with aesthetics:
A gorgeous vista was unveiled - “a dramatically beautiful sight that just could not be appreciated through the tiny openings of the old chain-link,” editorialized the Kennebec Journal. Still, the Augusta City Council insisted on reinstalling the barrier. The issue became controversial; an anti-fence petition drive was launched. The effort failed, however, and a new $350,000 barrier similar to the old will appear, salving consciences while obscuring the view.
[...]Barrier opponents in Augusta and San Francisco are right. Barriers are ugly and expensive.
As though “gorgeous vistas” (a) can only be viewed from a bridge and (b) are more important than a human life. Barriers — aka, fences — do not need to be ugly (there are dozens of beautifully designed fences on bridges, all it takes is some imagination and an architect), and they also don’t need to be expensive, when weighed against the cost of the human lives saved. An engineer wouldn’t dream of building a bridge without a guardrail to protect the cars from falling off of a bridge, so why would we even have to debate about building a fence on them to protect the people who walk across them?
The Boston Globe carried the original article on Sunday, October 22, 2006, Should Bridges Be Suicideproof?. Psych Central’s original coverage on the Golden Gate Bridge barrier is here. Bridges need fences, plain and simple. Fences save lives. Nobody questions the need or utility of a fence around an airport, a power station, or any other target that presents an inviting opportunity for people to take advantage of. For someone who is suicidal, a bridge is just such target.
(2 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ...You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Links to This Article
From Psych Central's World of Psychology:
Suicide Barriers are Effective - World of Psychology (7/10/2008)
13 Comments to
“Should Bridges Be Suicideproof?”
there is a documentary film out on the brige that is hoping to get wider release
What do you make of the idea that the reason people choose to commit suicide off a bridge is linked to the fact that one is more likely to get caught doing such an act than just cutting oneself open in a bathroom.
I think the reasons for suicide — in any form — are varied and largely personal.
I just look at the data and the facts. The data show that putting fences on bridges works. What is a bridge? It is, first and foremost, a means of allowing more easier transport from Point A to Point B. Usually cars. That’s why we put guardrails on bridges — to protect cars from falling off of them (either intentionally or not).
I see this debate no differently. Fences are there to protect people. We’d never think twice about building a bridge without guardrails, so we shouldn’t think twice about building a bridge without fences either.
I wouldn’t set up a strawman just to knock him down.
There’s more to arguments against a fence than you grant. Thomas Szasz (1986), for one, wrote a seminal article titled, “The Case Against Suicide Prevention” in which he argues that ultimately suicide cannot be prevented and is actually a basic human right. Obviously, many people disagree with this and you’ll find yourself in good company if you do as well.
My point is that there are reasonable arguments against suicide fences that object to them on principle rather than because of empirical research.
Or because people think the bridges are prettier without fences. I agree that that’s dumb. There are better reasons to oppose these fences.
How about the number of people you could feed with the money it would cost to build these fences?
This is a spoiled American idea, that we can somehow protect people from themselves. There are infinite ways to commit suicide, and if someone wants to do it they will.
But there are people starving every day who really want to live, but cannot, because spoiled Americans are spending money on ridiculous things like fences on bridges.
Perhaps we should ban all sharp objects? All substances that could cause death when ingested? You could prove that if there were no gasoline in the world, death by self immolation would decrease.
Perhaps we should put wire mesh over all windows higher than the first floor. Definitely outlaw automobiles, and all drugs that someone could overdose on.
Really just an absurd thing to spend money on.
There are indeed philosophical reasons to oppose any type of suicide prevention techniques, I agree. But those reasons are not brought up by opponents of fences, and they are much larger societal issues (and choices) that are made. Might as well de-fund suicide hotlines, then, if you go down that path.
Greg Rogers offers another strawman argument, since money (and economies) are not finite resources. You could feed the poor and build fences — it is not an either/or situation.
It is not purely an American idea that people should be protected in situations where the ease of causing harm is both easy and attractive. There are numerous examples of famous international suicide barriers on bridges or a monument. The Eiffel Tower being the most famous.
What is absurd is arguing how much a human life is worth. While that seems reasonable for an insurance company to do, it seems unfathomaable that ordinary people would believe that the cost of a fence is simply too much versus the cost of a human life (or, in the case of the Golden Gate Bridge, two dozen lives a year).
I think the essence of the disagreement is about whether suicide proofing a bridge is going to keep someone from killing themselves or not. I don’t believe that it will, as there are many, many options of ways to commit suicide. Do you have any stats, besides stats that show that a bridge isn’t used for suicide as much if there is a fence? Stats that show that people aren’t just choosing another means? How can you suicide-proof the world?
I think this is one of those causes that comes up more and more often in American society. It is as if the self-righteousness of going all out for this particular cause will relieve us from guilt in other areas.
Put a yellow magnet ribbon on the car to make us feel better about killing innocent people.
Make a lot of rules about where child molesters can live and work, and deny the fact that your child will be molested by his/her father, teacher, or priest, not some stranger.
If this is what you need to do to feel better, and you have the money, go ahead. But don’t pretend that this is some sort of panacea for preventing suicide, or even that this is the most effective way suicides might be prevented.
A suicide hotline is completely different, as it is a means of helping a troubled person. Putting up a fence to stop suicides is like trying to hide the booze from an alcoholic. It does nothing to address the real issue.
Now if you stationed human beings at bridges, who might be able to talk to people about what they are contemplating, you might make an impact. But if I were contemplating suicide, I don’t think a fence would change my mind.
I think that’s the difference between you and people who’ve made a real effort to kill themselves on a bridge. In interviews, such survivors cite two issues when it comes to bridges that would’ve stopped them from trying to go through with it:
1. A human being reaches out to them prior to the act. None of the interventions on the Golden Gate Bridge are proactive — they are reactive, after a person has already made the declaration of their intent. That’s helpful, certainly, and the staff of the bridge should be commended for talking dozens of would be jumpers off of the ledge. Yet nearly 2 dozen people a year still die despite this intervention on the bridge.
2. A barrier that takes away the option from being considered. People who want to commit suicide envision a very specific method for doing so. Some people envision a gun. Others, pills. Still others imagine some other means. One of those means is jumping from a bridge. If you remove that means, it is unlikely the person is just going to switch to imagining a scenario that doesn’t fit in with their plan. At the heart of it, actually attempting to commit suicide is a very impulsive act. People often make a split-second decision to carry out their plan, but also just as quickly want to take it back. It’s a time of emotional turmoil, of irrationality over reason.
I agree, it’s silly to imagine trying to “suicide proof” the world. But we do try and take reasonable and thoughtful measures where appropriate to reduce the chances of people harming themselves, both intentionally and unintentionally. That’s why seatbelts in cars went from an 18% wear-rate to over 80% when it was mandated by law in most states. Does it stop people from doing stupid things with motor vehicles or getting into accidents? No, not one iota. But it does help people protect themselves from themselves.
It costs us money, an enormous amount of time and resources, to legislate such behavior in 50 states. Yet it was done because it saves lives.
Fences on bridges save lives too.
I wonder if anyone considered the very issue of what influence does the actual experience of being on a bridge have on the individual who considers suicide. That is, is it plausible that some change their mind in part to merely being freightened by the height once they’ll get there?
Bridges have fences but they are to prevent people from accidental falling. People have preferable ways to commit suicide and it’s not just one, there could always be a second pick. Anyway, why don’t they install nets beneath the bridge to catch a suicidal person, and if it’s true that once they jump they regret it, that would save them.
I’m all for alternatives to fences, if it saves lives as well.
The key is to save lives, not the method for doing it.
I am sympathetic with Mr. Grohol, but am inclined to see Greg’s POV as reasonable as well. Increasingly, we live in a “nanny” state, and less so in a free state. The decision to kill oneself is an expression of free will, and reflects our human dignity, albeit in a way that might make many people uncomfortable. Suicide is just as likely to be a rational decison as an impulsive one. Just my two cents.
This sure sounds like pop psychology to me. I don’t see any scientific studies being cited. It’s all a matter of “sounds like it ought to be true.”
The best thing about barriers on bridges is that it encourages people to jump in front of trains, which is great amusement for the bystanders.
Why waste money and effort saving the lives of those who don’t want to live, when there are so many people who want to live who need help. In this country, we never deal with anything until it becomes a crisis.
Join the Conversation! Post a Comment:
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 23 Oct 2006
