Well that's silly, I'm only asking for a source for a fact you've given.Chie wrote:No, can you give me some evidence that it's not?Jovis wrote:Can you give some evidence?
Paracetamol silliness
I'd have said it was pretty much common sense. It's the kind of thing people don't do after they've had some time to think about it and the consequences to their friends and family. The longer it takes to gather the tools for the job, the less the person will want to complete the job. If that makes any sense at all.
I think you're trying to apply a certain kind of logic which belies the suicidal mind. 'Spontaneous' suicides (that is, where intent can be measured in a matter of minutes before action) make up about 25-40% of the suicide rate (varying by culture), and while one could try to argue that if for even one person, stalling them for long enough by putting weak paracetemol out of their reach on a whim so they can sit and have a think about their friends and family might be considered a success...it really is such an edge case, that you start getting into the territory of banning bleach should someone try to drown themselves in it.wells wrote:I'd have said it was pretty much common sense. It's the kind of thing people don't do after they've had some time to think about it and the consequences to their friends and family. The longer it takes to gather the tools for the job, the less the person will want to complete the job. If that makes any sense at all.
And it's these spontaneous suicides which tend to be the by-product of what would probably fall under that hideous 'cry for help' category. That's the person who ODs on paracetemol not knowing that they're more likely to endure a month of slow, tediously agonising liver failure before finally dragging themselves into death - than a quiet slip into the night. It's the person who slits their wrist the wrong way, mashing '999' into their phone as they fall into shock halfway through their abortive attempt. It's the person who thinks tying their dressing gown tie around their bathroom extactor fan makes for a reliable noose.
These bizarre rules will obviously have no impact on the determined because painkiller OD would be so far down on the list. As for the spontaneous, they'll go for whatever daft half-arsed method presents itself, and there's no point trying to chase them down that endless hole with legislation.
I know off the top of my head that OD admissions fell by 30% in the years after shops began restricting the number of painkillers customers can buy Lukey, so it's obviously not a "bizzare rule" and it has helped a lot.lukey wrote:I think you're trying to apply a certain kind of logic which belies the suicidal mind. 'Spontaneous' suicides (that is, where intent can be measured in a matter of minutes before action) make up about 25-40% of the suicide rate (varying by culture), and while one could try to argue that if for even one person, stalling them for long enough by putting weak paracetemol out of their reach on a whim so they can sit and have a think about their friends and family might be considered a success...it really is such an edge case, that you start getting into the territory of banning bleach should someone try to drown themselves in it.
And it's these spontaneous suicides which tend to be the by-product of what would probably fall under that hideous 'cry for help' category. That's the person who ODs on paracetemol not knowing that they're more likely to endure a month of slow, tediously agonising liver failure before finally dragging themselves into death - than a quiet slip into the night. It's the person who slits their wrist the wrong way, mashing '999' into their phone as they fall into shock halfway through their abortive attempt. It's the person who thinks tying their dressing gown tie around their bathroom extactor fan makes for a reliable noose.
These bizarre rules will obviously have no impact on the determined because painkiller OD would be so far down on the list. As for the spontaneous, they'll go for whatever daft half-arsed method presents itself, and there's no point trying to chase them down that endless hole with legislation.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/322/7296/1203.pdf
The results confirm this. It's also well documented that the more obstacles you put in a person's way, the more time they have to think about the situation and the impulse begins to fade over that period of time. Some people just literally can't bothered to go to all the effort of stockpiling pills at all. It really is as simple as that.The justification for the legislation was that analgesic self poisoning is often highly impulsive and associated with both low suicidal intent and limited knowledge of the possible consequences,8 9 and that the number of cases of overdose might be reduced by limiting availability of the drugs.
That's a pretty shoddy study you've found Chie. Correlation doesn't imply causation, which is basically that paper's only argument.
Regulation exists to stop one person harming another. Stopping people from harming themselves should be outside the scope of legislation (and for the same reason I disapprove of, for example, seatbelt legislation for adults).
Regulation exists to stop one person harming another. Stopping people from harming themselves should be outside the scope of legislation (and for the same reason I disapprove of, for example, seatbelt legislation for adults).
A French study suggests that before the legislation, fatalities from paracetamol overdose in Britain were four times higher than they were in France, where legislation was already in place.cdd wrote:That's a pretty shoddy study you've found Chie. Correlation doesn't imply causation, which is basically that paper's only argument.
And frankly, it is just obvious. These things don't suddenly happen all by themselves.
So you'd do away with the mental health service and abolish workplace health and safety regulations! Lovely.cdd wrote:Regulation exists to stop one person harming another. Stopping people from harming themselves should be outside the scope of legislation (and for the same reason I disapprove of, for example, seatbelt legislation for adults).
But you're not comparing like with like. The environments of Britain and France are not necessarily similar.Chie wrote:A French study suggests that before the legislation, fatalities from paracetamol overdose in Britain were four times higher than they were in France, where legislation was already in place.
Maybe to you, but it obviously isn't to me or I wouldn't be challenging your assertion.And frankly, it is just obvious.
I accept that it will save some lives - it's easy to come up with ideas that will save some lives - but nowhere near as many as you suggest. And don't give me the "if it saves just one life it's worthwhile" rubbish - it's very easy to put a price on human life. Reducing speed limits to 10 miles per hour everywhere would do wonders for road trafic accidents, but society has decided on the compromise we currently have. Yet there seems to be no such compromise with this paracetemol nonsense: do-gooders who, however well intentioned their motives, are actually worsening society.
And if you don't believe there's a'cost to limiting paracetemol purchase, look at the existence of this thread.
Don't put words into my mouth. I haven't said anything that allows you to extrapolate that. The former is a service (the clue is in the name, geddit?) and the latter is entirely to do with one organisation harming another.So you'd do away with the mental health service and abolish workplace health and safety regulations! Lovely.
In my opinion (and yes, I realise this bit is quite subjective), the less regulation the better. And such restrictions should be among the first to fall.
I wouldn't dream of it.cdd wrote:And don't give me the "if it saves just one life it's worthwhile" rubbish
But Dr Lobster was able to buy 16 painkillers. You only need two tablets to treat a headache. So I don't see the problem.cdd wrote:Yet there seems to be no such compromise with this paracetemol nonsense: do-gooders who, however well intentioned their motives, are actually worsening society.
And if you don't believe there's a'cost to limiting paracetemol purchase, look at the existence of this thread.
The mental health service exists mainly to try to prevent people harming themselves.cdd wrote: Don't put words into my mouth. I haven't said anything that allows you to extrapolate that. The former is a service (the clue is in the name, geddit?) and the latter is entirely to do with one organisation harming another.
In my opinion (and yes, I realise this bit is quite subjective), the less regulation the better. And such restrictions should be among the first to fall.