As someone who once received training from the Samaritans a suicide prevention group I was acutely interested to watch a documentary that filmed people jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. Shouldn't there have been some attempt at intervention? Presumably these were not people in the last stages of an unrelievable illness the sort of folk who make headlines in 'right-to-die' cases they were people who were so depressed they just decide one day to throw themselves off the bridge.
The bridge has a fair number of suicides every year and I immediately imagine students who have failed exams, people whose spouses have run off, or people struggling with mountains of debt.
As you might expect, none of the suicides which this film documents are elderly. All are physically fit. There are 24 in all including one who survives (very badly damaged as the result of the experience). Three of the bodies have never been recovered.
Check out the scenery. A nice view, to say the least. Even if it's not your last.
But the film has quite a few surprises in store that defy expectations. And this is one film that I can honestly say I am pleased I saw it on DVD the printed notes seem almost a straw to clutch.
Firstly we have interviews with surviving relatives. "The pressure on her had to be worse than the thought of doing it," says the sister of one jumper. You can see where she's coming from. The bridge is a high one. Even if you're not afraid of heights. Jumping off into nothingness is hardly something you could do lightly. We start seeing the people who committed suicide as human beings, not as 'crazies.' Their background. Their friends. One man who was in despair, especially (but not solely) because of his joblessness, committed suicide only for it to be revealed in the film that a managerial job offer had already been posted to him that day. "What makes any of us go over that line?" muses a family member.
Personally, I am a libertarian that supports the right to choose. If someone is terminally ill and there is no end to their suffering in sight, why shouldn't they, after due consideration, choose to go sooner rather than later. After looking into it, I have to extend that principle to include long-term, unrelievable suffering of a physical or a mental kind. This places me (philosophically) somewhere near the government position in the Netherlands. And some of the cases of people jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge seemed potentially to be in that category people who have struggled with mental illness for a long time and with every treatment offered unable to alleviate their distress. Yet there were not the safeguards for what they are worth that exist in the Netherlands. In the UK, if you discuss suicidal feelings with a Samaritan, they will not try to 'save' you. But they will try to give you a breathing space where you can reconsider and many people do. A more extreme version, where you could discuss the open-ended possibility with a non-judgemental social worker, doctor, and even assistant, rarely exists. In some countries, not trying to stop someone committing suicide is in itself a crime. Only in the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Oregon can any reasoned discussion (with the possibility of assistance) take place.
What the filmmakers do is explain how they set up a system. If someone acted in a definitely worrying manner they would make an emergency call to the services that are on constant alert. We see one case of a person being persuaded off the ledge by a passer-by. But the Golden Gate is a long bridge. The filmmakers were not running up and down, 24 hours, 365 days (they filmed for a whole year). There was not generally the actual possibility of intervening. The question that worried me more (slightly) was whether the act of filming was in itself an intrusion into someone's last moments.
The other question that I admit I avoid (like the Dutch government) is what if someone is suicidal because they cannot get access to social services? I have met such people. Sometimes, it is not that the provision isn't there, but that the paperwork, red tape or whatever, persistently over years makes it inaccessible. For such people (including some of the cases on this film) even the Dutch have no sure-fire mechanism.
But the Bridge doesn't moralise. It just documents.
The film makes one final statistic. It is a chilling one, especially if you have ever visited San Francisco. I remember the wonderful feeling of awe and exhilaration when I first glimpsed the city. Clasping the Pacific Ocean. Joined to the mainland by two of the most stunning bridges you can imagine. For me, it is one of the most beautiful sights, a combination of natural splendour and striking man-made accomplishment. No film can recreate that, although The Bridge does hint at it. To encase the pedestrian walkway would seem a sin. It has been going on for a long time, but the movie has re-ignited the debate about safety barriers.
Because, the statistic that sticks, is that more people end their life at the Golden Gate Bridge than at any other place in the world.
The bridge has a fair number of suicides every year and I immediately imagine students who have failed exams, people whose spouses have run off, or people struggling with mountains of debt.
As you might expect, none of the suicides which this film documents are elderly. All are physically fit. There are 24 in all including one who survives (very badly damaged as the result of the experience). Three of the bodies have never been recovered.
Check out the scenery. A nice view, to say the least. Even if it's not your last.
But the film has quite a few surprises in store that defy expectations. And this is one film that I can honestly say I am pleased I saw it on DVD the printed notes seem almost a straw to clutch.
Firstly we have interviews with surviving relatives. "The pressure on her had to be worse than the thought of doing it," says the sister of one jumper. You can see where she's coming from. The bridge is a high one. Even if you're not afraid of heights. Jumping off into nothingness is hardly something you could do lightly. We start seeing the people who committed suicide as human beings, not as 'crazies.' Their background. Their friends. One man who was in despair, especially (but not solely) because of his joblessness, committed suicide only for it to be revealed in the film that a managerial job offer had already been posted to him that day. "What makes any of us go over that line?" muses a family member.
Personally, I am a libertarian that supports the right to choose. If someone is terminally ill and there is no end to their suffering in sight, why shouldn't they, after due consideration, choose to go sooner rather than later. After looking into it, I have to extend that principle to include long-term, unrelievable suffering of a physical or a mental kind. This places me (philosophically) somewhere near the government position in the Netherlands. And some of the cases of people jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge seemed potentially to be in that category people who have struggled with mental illness for a long time and with every treatment offered unable to alleviate their distress. Yet there were not the safeguards for what they are worth that exist in the Netherlands. In the UK, if you discuss suicidal feelings with a Samaritan, they will not try to 'save' you. But they will try to give you a breathing space where you can reconsider and many people do. A more extreme version, where you could discuss the open-ended possibility with a non-judgemental social worker, doctor, and even assistant, rarely exists. In some countries, not trying to stop someone committing suicide is in itself a crime. Only in the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Oregon can any reasoned discussion (with the possibility of assistance) take place.
What the filmmakers do is explain how they set up a system. If someone acted in a definitely worrying manner they would make an emergency call to the services that are on constant alert. We see one case of a person being persuaded off the ledge by a passer-by. But the Golden Gate is a long bridge. The filmmakers were not running up and down, 24 hours, 365 days (they filmed for a whole year). There was not generally the actual possibility of intervening. The question that worried me more (slightly) was whether the act of filming was in itself an intrusion into someone's last moments.
The other question that I admit I avoid (like the Dutch government) is what if someone is suicidal because they cannot get access to social services? I have met such people. Sometimes, it is not that the provision isn't there, but that the paperwork, red tape or whatever, persistently over years makes it inaccessible. For such people (including some of the cases on this film) even the Dutch have no sure-fire mechanism.
But the Bridge doesn't moralise. It just documents.
The film makes one final statistic. It is a chilling one, especially if you have ever visited San Francisco. I remember the wonderful feeling of awe and exhilaration when I first glimpsed the city. Clasping the Pacific Ocean. Joined to the mainland by two of the most stunning bridges you can imagine. For me, it is one of the most beautiful sights, a combination of natural splendour and striking man-made accomplishment. No film can recreate that, although The Bridge does hint at it. To encase the pedestrian walkway would seem a sin. It has been going on for a long time, but the movie has re-ignited the debate about safety barriers.
Because, the statistic that sticks, is that more people end their life at the Golden Gate Bridge than at any other place in the world.