Bridges of Inviting and Triggering Suicides in the US - Essay Example

According to National Institute of Mental Health (n.d), suicide is “a major, preventable public health problem.” It was considered one the top of theleading causes of death in the country in year 2007, placing tenth according to statistics (www.nimh.nih.gov, n.d.). But now, it goes up to third, making 11 out of every 100,000 people commit suicide each year. Being a “preventable health problem”, each of us must take deep thought about this and be responsible to address this problem. Who would have thought that bridges are capable of inviting and triggering suicides in United States? The contentious documentary entitled “The Bridge” featured the well-known Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. According to The Bridge, “the mythic beauty of the Golden Gate Bridge, the most popular suicide destination in the world, and the unfortunate souls drawn by its siren call” (Morrow, 2006). This controversial documentary documented how 24 people in year 2004 chose to commit suicide and die at the Golden Gate Bridge (Morrow, 2006). According to Fimrite (1998), a staff writer of the Chronicle, the Golden Bridge is the “No. 1 suicide landmark in the world.” Another famous bridge is the Coronado Bridge in San Diego, considered to be a suicide magnet too (Dotinga, 2009). Dotinga (2009) stated that Coronado Bridge is “one of the highest suicide tolls of any bridge in North America, almost certainly placing it in the top five.” Sunshine Skyway of St. Petersburg was also identified as the “nations fourth-most-frequent suicide bridge” (Morales, 2011). Bridges are therefore considered to be sure, swift, clean and accessible method of committing suicide. The alarming cases of suicides committed in Golden Gate Bridge, Sunshine Skyway and Coronado Bridge are the proofs that commission of suicide in bridges is already common especially among the youth. In order for this situation and fact to be addressed, the engineers who build and design bridges should therefore take good consideration of the fact sheet of the country. Before they design and build bridges they should know the possible effects of their decisions. In cases like the Golden Gate Bridge, Coronado and Sunshine Skyway, what engineers could possibly do is to put barriers and or any devices that would surely prevent people commit suicide. It can be said that suicide is way out of the hands of the designers or engineers who build the bridges, but in the end, they can be considered partly responsible of the effects of the bridges they built. If the design or structure of the bridge invites people to a quicker and cleaner way of killing a person or himself, then it can be said that it was the design and structure that triggered these people to commit suicide. In the case of the country today, having suicide as the third leading cause of death, and getting increasing numbers of those committing such act in bridges, building bridges is not just a managing and maintaining traffic flow. It is more than linking and connecting places. Instead, it is also about how people may think of the bridge you built. The engineers, before building bridges, should therefore try to think it the way people should think about the output. The suicide rate in bridges is already alarming. It is not the engineer’s direct responsibility to reduce or prevent suicides. However, it is the state’s responsibility to protect the society against any harm. Suicide can be said to be human’s freedom of choice to commit one, because if it is not then it wouldn’t be suicide anymore. Suicide is a choice, if it is not, it is already murder if instigated by others. But state through the engineers can prevent or reduce these cases by putting suicide prevention devices in bridges that are most often used as easy means to commit suicides. According to J.S. Mill “the liberty of the individual, in things wherein the individual is alone concerned, implies a corresponding liberty in any number of individuals to regulate by mutual agreement such things as regard them jointly, and regard no persons but themselves. This question presents no difficulty, so long as the will of all the persons implicated remains unaltered; but since that will may change, it is often necessary, even in things in which they alone are concerned, that they should enter into engagements with one another; and when they do, it is fit, as a general rule, that those engagements should be kept” (www.bartleby.com, n.d.). Thus if there are others that are affected by the choice of an individual, the said individual should keep the agreements made by the group. In the case of someone who wanted to commit suicide, it is not incompatible to human freedom anymore, because by the said act committed, there are others affected and not just himself. There is certainly a need of suicide barriers and prevention devices. In was in 1997 when the Golden Gate Bridge District for the first time took and considered to install a suicide barrier (Horowitz, 1997). It was really difficult for them that they have to install such device without ruining the view of San Francisco, one that is famous world-wide (Horowitz, 1997). On June 1998, the #1 suicide landmark had started to install its suicide barrier, a fence made of curved wire. But overall, this cost $47 million to make such fence that will not affect the design, view and will not blight the bridge and create hazard when the wind is strong (Fimrite, 1998). This fence is believed to address and deter suicide. There are debates that suicide barriers are ineffective. However, according to Grohol (2006) quoting Matthew Miller, “The more obstacles you can throw up, the more you move it away from being an impulsive act. And once you’ve done that, you take a lot of people out of the game. If you look at how people get into trouble, it’s usually because they’re acting impulsively, they haven’t thought things through.” Because of the suicide barriers, people can definitely think things through and will not commit the action anymore. This is the reason why suicide barriers should be provided. It is not true that people cannot be stopped from hurting themselves. As stated by John Grohol, founder and CEO of Psych Central, suicide is “often an irrational, in-the-moment act, simple barriers are extremely effective in helping a person make the choice to live another day until the crisis has past.” Therefore, these barriers can definitely save more lives. If the barriers can save 47 million lives from now on up to the future, then the 47 million worth of suicide barrier project is worth a dollar per life. Even if it is just one life, it will still be worth it. When the engineers will build these suicide prevention devices, this is for the long run. Thus, we must not be alarmed with the cost, but instead we must be alarmed by each life taken away from jumping off the bridge. It will be really difficult to sell this to officials, voters and taxpayers if we are going to initiate this project. However, the question is, how much for them does each life is worth? The suicide barriers may cost a fortune, but these will definitely save more lives in the future. If one of their family members became depressed and is thinking of jumping off in one of the bridges they have, wouldn’t they want to even give ample time for that person to think it through and think twice? If that person goes to the bridge which is open and does not have fences or barriers, he or she will surely jump off because it is easy. But if there are fences and barriers, that person will definitely think twice, making suicide a harder and more difficult option to do. According to the landmark study of Dr. Seiden (1978), from May 18, 1937 to April 1, 1978, there were 625 cases of suicides in Golden Gate Bridge that were officially reported and more than 200 were not. The debate against preventive barriers states that it will be ineffective because they will just go and find someplace else. But the study of Dr. Seiden tested this hypothesis. He followed and checked the lives for an average of 26 years of the 515 persons who attempted to jump at the Golden Gate Bridge but where restricted and removed before they could jump. In conclusion, he found 94% were still alive or had died due to natural causes (Seiden, 1978). Professor Marc Daigle also reported and concluded in his study that suicides can be impulsive especially among the youth, individuals have preference for the means of committing suicide and if restricted, they may not go somewhere else (Brooks, n.d.). Thus with this data, we can say that preventive suicide procedures are effective. The study of Dr. Seiden proved that the 515 lives saved are worth every penny spent on the construction of suicide barriers Suppose suicide rate increases despite the precautions or barriers, I will still be in favour of the barriers. I believe that it is still going to become an effective means of preventing suicide committed in bridges. If this is the case, I believe that the nation should be alarmed of the causes why such action of taking away life is becoming an easy option to people. If despite the barriers, people still wanted to die, then I can say that there is a great problem people are having. The country should therefore have to try harder to address the issue in society, health, family and peers. The officials and concerned people should know the reason behind the commission of suicide. I still believe that the issue on impulsive suicide rate decreases because of the barriers but the rate of commission in other ways is the one increasing. If a person still committed suicide and jumped off the bridge with a suicide prevention device, then I can say that that particular person had already decided and is firm of his or her decision to die. Because despite the fact making suicide difficult the person still commits it, then the problem is not about the bridge and availability of suicide venue anymore. It deeply roots somewhere and that is what should be addressed. References: Brooks, John. Barriers to the Barrier (n.d.). Web. 10 October 2011. Dotinga, Randy. Suicide Magnet, (2009). Web. 3 October 2011. Fimrite, Peter. Anti-Suicide Device for Golden Gate / Officials and passers-by review deterrent to leaps, (1998). Web. 4 October 2011. Grohol, John. Suicide Barriers are Effective, (2006). Web. 3 October 2011. Horowitz, Donna. Wire Fence Eyed for GG Bridge, (1997). Web. 4 October 2011. “John Stuart Mill. On Liberty.” www.bartleby.com. Web. 10 October 2011 Morales, Ileana. Clearwater Man Latest Sunshine Skyway Suicide, (2011). Web. 2 October 2011. Morrow, Angela. The Bridge- A New Film Look at Deaths from The Golden Gate Bridge, (2006). Web. 3 October 2011. “Suicide in the U.S.: Statistics and Prevention.” www.nimh.nih.gov. National Institute of Mental Heath, n.d. Web. 3 October 2011. Seiden, Richard. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior. Vol. 8 (4), Winter 1978. Web. 10 October 2011. Read More