[hijack]
In a word, yes. For example, in one study 12% of pediatric bipolar sufferers experienced at least one week of psychotic symptoms.
For a great first-hand description of bipolar disorder (including descriptions of hallucinations), check out An Unquiet Mind by Kay Redfield Jamison, a psychiatrist who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.[/hijack]
Well, I can think of at least one very simple, albeit very expensive design which would neatly circumvent that problem. Part of the reason that we as a society discourage freelance daredevil stunts such as climbing buildings and base jumping off the Gateway Arch is that if the stunt fails, the viewing public will be traumatized by seeing a person die in such a violent manner. Suicide is a messy business, and to the public, a costly one. If it is a necessary evil, it would best kept concealed.
Thanks, it was mentioned in the article that **Troy McClure ** linked and I’d never heard of such symptoms.
Good information for male cross dressers. 
The OP is also the OP of the “Who has been shot the most times and still survived?” thread. Is there something we should know?
Great article. It also discusses the decades-long, on-again off-again debate over building an anti-suicide barrier. I understand that aesthetics are a concern for many - but surely some smart architect can come up with a barrier that compliments the GGB’s wonderful appearance while saving lives?
The jumper’s mother opposes a suicide barrier.
Also:
Good point, for those that like picking nits. By far, most jumpers off the GGB jumped off the east side, facing San Francisco, so they landed in the SF Bay, rather than in the ocean. It is also possible to jump off at either end and land on the ground.
In case it’s not obvious what the reasoning is in the post below yours … There’s no way to remove from the universe all of the different ways to kill oneself. It’s very doubtful that any of the would-be suicides who were turned away by such a barrier would be eternally dissuaded from their plans. They would just (then or later) find a less spectacular way of putting them into practice.
If you want to impact the suicide rate, do something to help change the way mental health care is delivered in this country. 
The best part is that that is true. Drag is draggy.
The movie was really interesting. It is called The Bridge.
Of course the world can never be made completely safe. But the New Yorker article, and several of the other linked articles, argue that if so spectacularly attractive a “suicide destination” were made more unappealing to those intending to kill themselves, or if they found themselves stymied once they got there, many just might not try. It seems counterintuitive, but IANA psychologist and there could be something to it. Certainly seems worth trying, IMHO. Of course that’s not to say that we can’t do other things like improve and reform our mental health system.
This New Yorker article, which is from Oct. 13, 2003, on page 5 of 6 mentions the “debris fence” then in place 25 years on the southern part of the bridge, over land, to prevent tourists dropping trash on those in the park below; also the steel barrier between walkway and traffic, completed October 2003, to prevent cyclists on the walkway veering into traffic, though no cyclist had ever been killed. In both cases officials interviewed by Tad Friend, author of the article, cited as a reason for the alterations: “It’s a public safety issue.”
These projects overcame the aesthetic and cost objections of their times. There doesn’t seem to have been a time when objections were not strong. They weren’t less strong in those days, yet those projects went through. Why not the suicide barrier?
Is the bridge the demarcation between the two? I thought that the area of water between SF and Marin is the “Golden Gate,” and that the ocean starts well west of the bridge.
Great article, delphica- thanks for posting it.
It seems you are confusing a public safety issue with a private safety issue. Bicylists hit by cars, or trash causing an accident, are public safety issues, they affect innocent users of the bridge. Suicide jumpers, on the other hand, threaten no one but themselves.
I’m not saying that’s a justification for or against the barrier, just that you’re comparing apples and oranges.
w.
Noted. I find myself undecided on the issue. My kneejerk reaction two days ago would have been yes, there should be a barrier, but since becoming aware of the strength and long history of the resistance to it among Bay Area residents I’m not so sure anymore. It’s an intriguing controversy.
Funny, I am the opposite. I was of the opinion that if people want to jump, let them jump, but then I read some of the information linked to here stating the very high (I think over 90, but do not immediately recall) percentage of potential jumpers that were stopped once and had not killed themselves several years later. It seems that the bridge attracts people in immediate crisis, and that if they get through that crisis they tend not to try again.
I think that they could create a barrier that wold prevent jumping, but not obstruct the view at all. How about a 7 foot high barbed wire barrier that stuck out perpendicular to the side of the bridge, below eye level? It doesn’t obstruct the view of motorists at all, and only obstructs the straight-down view of pedestrians… and that only minorly. Anyone who is willing to rip themselves up crawling across barbed wire is likely the kind of person who is going to off themselves some other way if they can’t do it off the bridge, but I think it would discourage the vast majority of jumpers. They want to die (at least at that moment) but they don’t want it bad enough to go through the pain it would take.
Respondng to flight, Post 38 just above:
That high rate of non-recidivism in suicide anywhere or in any form by people who had been prevented once from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge is haunting and compelling. I think of teenaged Ms. Imrie, one of the suicides mentioned in *The New Yorker * article, who might still be here.
But then I think of Debbie Hines, whose teenaged son jumped but survived. She didn’t make her comment (that there should be no barrier) offhandedly or prematurely. She had her reason, and time elapsed between her son’s jump and when she finally commented. Her son sustained permanent injuries – he will always be in some kind of neck or back brace. She also opposes her son continuing in his chosen role as spokesperson / interventionist on aspects of the whole situation.
I still don’t understand the thinking behind opposition to a barrier but I see it is not flippant nor made solely by people untouched by the attendant tragedies.