Discussion Three Combined Methods: Is Survival Possible?

[L'absent]

I've been thinking about a specific scenario involving three combined lethal methods to analyze their real effectiveness and the chances of survival. Imagine this situation: a person sitting on a chair uses three methods simultaneously to ensure death. The first is an intraoral gunshot with a .357 Magnum, aimed at the palate to target vital areas such as the brainstem or other critical parts of the brain. A shot like this is considered practically lethal, causing immediate loss of consciousness and massive brain damage. Even if the shot is not perfectly executed, the chances of survival are minimal due to internal bleeding or trauma. The second method involves a noose around the neck that tightens automatically after the shot, compressing the carotid arteries and trachea. Loss of consciousness occurs within 10-15 seconds due to interrupted blood flow to the brain, with brain death happening in about 4-6 minutes. Even without the gunshot, the noose alone is lethal. The third element is a room filled with carbon monoxide (CO), released from 9-10 canisters that rapidly saturate the air. Carbon monoxide binds to hemoglobin with very high affinity, blocking oxygen transport in the blood. In a closed room, lethal concentrations can be reached within minutes, quickly causing death by chemical asphyxiation. Analyzing the combination of these three factors, survival appears impossible. Even if the first method isn't perfectly effective, the noose or the carbon monoxide would still ensure death. Even with medical intervention within 10 minutes, the combination of traumatic damage, suffocation, and chemical poisoning leaves no possibility of survival. Based on this analysis, the probability of survival is 0%, and lethality is 100%. What do you think? Do you believe it's theoretically possible for someone to survive this scenario, or does this combination of methods make the outcome inevitable?

 

[Praestat_Mori]

How would you setup this scenario?

How would you make sure the noose tightens "automatically" after the gun shot? Maybe bc you stand on a chair and after the gunshot you will be unconscious and (partially) hang automatically?

Who would open the CO cylinders? Timer? I think if one opened the CO cylinders in a room there's not much time left for a gun shot.

I would stick with the KIS principle (Keep It Simple) as any of the methods are lethal except the gun shot could fail if you don't hit the brain stem but full suspension hanging is lethal in any case if your just hanging on your neck and CO from cylinders will also be lethal within seconds.

 

[L'absent]

How would you setup this scenario?

How would you make sure the noose tightens "automatically" after the gun shot? Maybe bc you stand on a chair and after the gunshot you will be unconscious and (partially) hang automatically?

Who would open the CO cylinders? Timer? I think if one opened the CO cylinders in a room there's not much time left for a gun shot.

I would stick with the KIS principle (Keep It Simple) as any of the methods are lethal except the gun shot could fail if you don't hit the brain stem but full suspension hanging is lethal in any case if your just hanging on your neck and CO from cylinders will also be lethal within seconds.

After the shot you generally lose consciousness (especially with a weapon like that). If you are in the chair you fall into the loop in full suspension. The cylinders must be opened first in a side-by-side room which will have an electric door that opens automatically after 10 minutes.

 

[zengiraffe]

I'd like to tell you a story. I didn't come up with this story, but I heard it somewhere long time ago and can't find the original source, so this will be entirely from memory.

A suicidal man goes to the beach to kill himself. He has a handgun, a bottle of poison, and some rope. He creates a noose hanging off the edge of a cliff overlooking the ocean. His plan is put the noose around his neck, drink the poison, jump off the cliff, and as he's mid-air shoot himself in the head. So he puts the noose around his neck, drinks the poison, jumps off the cliff, and he mistimes the shot, the noose catches his neck right before he pulls the trigger which yanks his hand from pointing the gun at head to the rope! He cuts the rope with the gunshot, and falls 20 feet into the ocean, missing all of the sharp rocks on the way down, the tide pushes him back onto the shore, and all of the salt water he ingested causes him to vomit up all of the poison he took earlier before it had a chance to take effect. He lives.

Now, this story is suppose to be about the power of god, or some bullshit like that, I don't know and don't care. I think it teaches a much more important lesson, which is that when you have several highly reliable suicide methods, they can lose overall reliability when you try to combine them in elaborate ways. The man in the story would have died if he just shot himself in the head, or just handed himself, or just drank the poison, but because he was a sweaty tryhard he combined these methods in a way that caused him to botch all of them.

Similarly, in your case, you have three effective and highly reliable methods. Any one of them will get the job done as long as you focus your attention and put your effort into it, but if you try to hedge your bets by juggling and orchestrating multiple methods simultaneously then you're more likely to botch some or all of them.

Also, are you really sure you want to CTB? When someone talks about combining multiple methods, especially when the individual methods themselves are already virtually ironclad, it's a sign they're willing to procrastinate indefinitely and planning "the perfect" suicide ironically becomes how they keep themselves alive for the rest of their natural life. Like, why stop at combining only three methods? Why not also drink cyanide? And drown yourself? And electrocute yourself? And starve yourself? And jump off of somewhere high? You can combine eight methods! You'll be planning this suicide until you die peacefully in your sleep at the age of 85 lmao. If you don't actually want to CTB it's better to admit that to yourself and take steps toward recovery.

 

[L'absent]

I'd like to tell you a story. I didn't come up with this story, but I heard it somewhere long time ago and can't find the original source, so this will be entirely from memory.

A suicidal man goes to the beach to kill himself. He has a handgun, a bottle of poison, and some rope. He creates a noose hanging off the edge of a cliff overlooking the ocean. His plan is put the noose around his neck, drink the poison, jump off the cliff, and as he's mid-air shoot himself in the head. So he puts the noose around his neck, drinks the poison, jumps off the cliff, and he mistimes the shot, the noose catches his neck right before he pulls the trigger which yanks his hand from pointing the gun at head to the rope! He cuts the rope with the gunshot, and falls 20 feet into the ocean, missing all of the sharp rocks on the way down, the tide pushes him back onto the shore, and all of the salt water he ingested causes him to vomit up all of the poison he took earlier before it had a chance to take effect. He lives.

Now, this story is suppose to be about the power of god, or some bullshit like that, I don't know and don't care. I think it teaches a much more important lesson, which is that when you have several highly reliable suicide methods, they can lose overall reliability when you try to combine them in elaborate ways. The man in the story would have died if he just shot himself in the head, or just handed himself, or just drank the poison, but because he was a sweaty tryhard he combined these methods in a way that caused him to botch all of them.

Similarly, in your case, you have three effective and highly reliable methods. Any one of them will get the job done as long as you focus your attention and put your effort into it, but if you try to hedge your bets by juggling and orchestrating multiple methods simultaneously then you're more likely to botch some or all of them.

Also, are you really sure you want to CTB? When someone talks about combining multiple methods, especially when the individual methods themselves are already virtually ironclad, it's a sign they're willing to procrastinate indefinitely and planning "the perfect" suicide ironically becomes how they keep themselves alive for the rest of their natural life. Like, why stop at combining only three methods? Why not also drink cyanide? And drown yourself? And electrocute yourself? And starve yourself? And jump off of somewhere high? You can combine eight methods! You'll be planning this suicide until you die peacefully in your sleep at the age of 85 lmao. If you don't actually want to CTB it's better to admit that to yourself and take steps toward recovery.

The story of the suicidal man seems like an urban legend, but in life anything is possible. Well… Hitler also mixed cyanide with a gun and then asked to be burned – he didn't procrastinate. Combined methods are generally used to maximize the chances of success. It is often said on this forum that no method is 100% safe or foolproof. So, isn't it better to aim for the highest possible success rate? We cannot rule out the failure of all three methods. That said, hanging causes suffering, that's a fact. It could fail, that's a fact too. It can cause permanent damage, that's a fact too. The same goes for carbon monoxide. The weapon could cause instant death, but if it doesn't, the almost certain loss of consciousness is interesting (as they say). This may make the hanging and monoxide more bearable. What do you think about partial hanging? Doesn't this seem more like a method of procrastination, rather than a real intention to die?

 

[Worndown]

Complicated. Focus on doing one method correctly.

 

[Hvergelmir]

urban legend

I don't think it was intended to be believed as a true story, but a thought experiment - it could have happened.
The teaching is still true. Added complexity increases the risk of error.

Compared to other methods, yours add a lot of complexity and effort without providing any clear advantages.

the probability of survival is 0%, and lethality is 100%

The lethality of a rope is 100%, properly executed.
It's cheap, accessible, and draws a lot less attention.

If you have lots of money and you're not discouraged by work, you might want to consider a guillotine. It would avoid the risk of rouge bullets, and poisoning whomever finds you.
I don't think anyone have ever survived a guillotine. It can also be tested, so that you know for sure that it works, before you use it.

 

[L'absent]

Complicated. Focus on doing one method correctly.

So you suggest focusing on a single 'preferred' method? Interesting, but what happens if there is a 'jolt' or an unexpected event? I would end up joining the hundreds of thousands of people who are paralyzed or have severe brain damage. Around the world there are around 280,000 suicide attempts using firearms every year, with around 31,000 permanently disabled according to official statistics. Perhaps it is precisely to avoid situations like this that many users recommend thinking carefully before acting, even if they have not yet intervened, but the thread has just been born. After all, listening to advice and carefully evaluating the risks is always a good idea, right? This is what the forum is for.
In my opinion, the SN method is more complicated, with that military protocol to follow. In my thread there are few simple things to do. A chair, a noose, a weapon (even kids are killed with their father's gun picked up for the first time), some easily available cylinders. Why does it seem complicated to you?

I don't think it was intended to be believed as a true story, but a thought experiment - it could have happened.
The teaching is still true. Added complexity increases the risk of error.

Compared to other methods, yours add a lot of complexity and effort without providing any clear advantages.

The lethality of a rope is 100%, properly executed.
It's cheap, accessible, and draws a lot less attention.

If you have lots of money and you're not discouraged by work, you might want to consider a guillotine. It would avoid the risk of rouge bullets, and poisoning whomever finds you.
I don't think anyone have ever survived a guillotine. It can also be tested, so that you know for sure that it works, before you use it.

There is never 100% certain lethality and here in the forum it is a mantra. Furthermore, I have already written that I am confident in the immediate loss of consciousness after the shot. This is a huge plus. Consider how many here in the forum hold back precisely for fear of the pain of hanging and how many search among a thousand medicines, drugs, neck rings etc etc... so as not to suffer when the rope tightens you like a chicken. Falling into the loop unconscious is an unprecedented advantage. Finally, since each method has no certainty of lethality, it is best to get as close as possible to a fatal and painless outcome, perhaps instantaneous. The question remains open.
I've considered the guillotine, but I don't have a huge garage like the ones who built it to hide it and I don't have the technical skills. I read that those who committed suicide with the guillotine were practically expert craftsmen. And the miniature chamber guillotines loaded with bricks don't convince me.
I did this calculation with the three methods combined. we are not there yet there is always risk even if apparently minimal.

Assuming the most optimistic survival rates:

Firearm: 10% survival (90% lethality)

Hanging: 20% survival (80% lethality)

Carbon Monoxide: 10% survival (90% lethality)


The combined survival rate would be:
0.1 × 0.2 × 0.1 = 0.002 = 0.2% survival

Thus, the overall lethality would be approximately 99.8%.


Things look more interesting by adding cyanide which is very unlikely for me to get.

Using the most optimistic survival rates:

Firearm: 15% (0.15 survival probability).

Hanging: 30% (0.30 survival probability).

CO: 15% (0.15 survival probability).

Cyanide: 5% (0.05 survival probability).


Combined Survival Probability = 0.15 × 0.30 × 0.15 × 0.05 = 0.0003375 (0.03375%)

Combined Lethality:

The total lethality is therefore:
100% - 0.03375% ≈ 99.97%

 

[Worndown]

Combining methods leaves you open to one failing because you missed an important detail. Multiply that by the number of methods attempting at the same time.
Focus on your most attainable method. Research, prepare and do it successfully.
Outside of the slim chance you are found or miss, outwitting SI should be your main concern.

 

[L'absent]

Combining methods leaves you open to one failing because you missed an important detail. Multiply that by the number of methods attempting at the same time.
Focus on your most attainable method. Research, prepare and do it successfully.
Outside of the slim chance you are found or miss, outwitting SI should be your main concern.

I understand your point, but I believe your reasoning is more valid when dealing with low lethality methods, such as using over-the-counter medications, superficial cuts, or a stab wound to the chest. In these cases, combining methods can introduce more variables and increase the risk of failure because if one method doesn't work as expected, the chances of survival increase.
However, in the case of highly lethal methods, such as intraoral shooting, hanging, and exposure to carbon monoxide, combining these factors drastically reduces the chances of survival. Even if one of the methods doesn't work perfectly, the other two would still have a high probability of leading to a fatal outcome.
So, while your observation might be valid for low lethality methods, in the case of extremely lethal methods, combining multiple factors increases the overall effectiveness and reduces the risk of failure.

 

[Worndown]

High, low...distractions limit success. Do a low probability method well, you succeed. Planning and focus should not be overlooked.
Nobody should fail. That only adds to the existing problems. Life is tough enough as it is.

 

[L'absent]

High, low...distractions limit success. Do a low probability method well, you succeed. Planning and focus should not be overlooked.
Nobody should fail. That only adds to the existing problems. Life is tough enough as it is.

Your point is valid for methods with low success probabilities, where precision and planning can make a difference. However, for high-lethality methods, like those discussed in the thread, combining them is not a distraction but rather a reinforcement of the chances of success. The hypothetical scenarios are not based on distractions but on a synergy between methods that further reduces the possibility of survival, even in case of errors in one of them. The idea is not to neglect planning but to increase probabilities through a multilayered approach. It's not about promoting failures but about statistically analyzing the variables at play.