A couple of weeks ago I came across a brief article announcing that the The Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District's Board of Directors had green lit an environmental study concerning a proposed "suicide net" addition onto the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California. My interest was immediately piqued, and as I don't even live in California, and have never visited the state, I had never heard of this proposal. Wikipedia to the rescue!
After a couple quick searches, I discovered that the Golden Gate Bridge is unfortunately known to have the highest rate of suicides in the world, over 1,200 to date. There are measures in place already to prevent deaths, such as foot patrols, hot line telephones stationed along the walkways, and the path being closed to pedestrians at night. However, suicide prevention advocates for this particular project wish a barrier to be erected along the sides of the bridge, obviously eliminating the ability to jump to ones death. The project has seen several propositions, but for a variety of reasons, the net has been settled on as the most effective, economical, and laughably, the most aesthetically pleasing. Barriers such as this have been erected on a handful of bridges around the world with high suicide rates; one that I came across was the so called "Luminous Veil" barrier, connected to the Prince Edward Viaduct in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Reading about that particular project made me unsure whether to laugh or cry, as Wikipedia told me it had won the 1999 Canadian Architect Award of Excellence, and the article was additionally placed into the "Canadian Art" and "Public Art" categories on the website. What?! Is that as ludicrous as it sounds in my head? That one searching for "Public Art" on Wikipedia would be returned an article on a suicide prevention barrier on a bridge in Toronto!? But I digress...
As I was reading these articles, I quickly became so dumbfounded that asked my best friend, whom I was chatting with, what she thought about suicide barriers. Which quickly landed her right there with me in "what the hell?!" land. On one hand, some people need help. No question. And of course, those with the resources to do so, should help. Does erecting an actual physical barrier cross the line though? Also, I should mention that we're not talking about a soft pillow of marshmallows, either. This is a steel, possibly plastic coated (don't want our suicide barrier to rust) netting. So, the inherent injuries associated with slamming into a steel mesh from who knows how many feet above, created by total strangers in an attempt to control others' lives, are those injuries just a moot point? Is it better than the alternative? And what legal repercussions are there when suicide attempts end in broken bones (or worse) caused by this barrier? Not to mention the fact that this project will cost an estimated $50 million, all from private contributors and state/federal grants. I don't know the answer to any of these questions, and I'm sure it's not black and white, but I can't help thinking that the end doesn't justify the means. I have no doubt families of people who have committed suicide disagree. I'm ok with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment