Can I take SN without any medication?

[NothingElseMatters]

Only Sn, no benzos, no antiemetics.

 

[Gregorius]

M.With a lot of luck, you will be fine and you will achieve CTB. Unfortunately, the chance is slim. you feel miserable, vomit and it fails. Good luck anyway. It's your last way you go in peace more easily with drugs like benzos

 

[autumnal]

It's a bad idea to skip the antiemetics.

The SN guides in the Resources Compilation explain all of this.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/attachments/autumnal-rtfm-resources-only-extended-information-png.34278/

 

[Ange_Fatigue]

There are numerous cases of accidentals deaths with very low doses of Sn. Informations are confusing about it s lethaly without anti emetics and anti acid.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

It's a bad idea to skip the antiemetics.

I have to disagree that this is an accurate statement.

The beginning of Stan's guide says that all that is necessary is the SN, water, and fasting. All else is for comfort.

The threads that have gathered anecdotal accounts of successes and failures show that some people vomit with antiemetics (and still ctb), while some don't vomit without them.

So I would say it's a personal choice to skip antiemetics, and that one should not be put off by the method if they cannot obtain them.

 

[Ange_Fatigue]

It s just an personal view but if someone take Sn and metabolize enough to feel nauseous and vomit, the dose might be sufficient.
Ex : with alcool even if you vomit, the dose stays in your bloodstream.

 

[I screwed up]

Hi.. antiemetic although not absolutely necessary, it will help keep the SN in your stomach and stop u from vomiting & much higher chances of success that's all. So bottom line is u can succeed or fail either way .. With or without antiemetic depending on his much SN gets into your blood...

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

It s just an personal view but if someone take Sn and metabolize enough to feel nauseous and vomit, the dose might be sufficient.
Ex : with alcool even if you vomit, the dose stays in your bloodstream.

The anecdotal accounts show your personal view is accurate.

4-6 hours of fasting also ensures more absorption.

 

[Living sucks]

@VolatilePotato did only serequel no AE.
Check his posts for what he felt.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/todays-the-day-sn.36951/post-686006

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...-i-made-today-first-dose-of-sn-is-down.36987/

 

[autumnal]

I have to disagree that this is an accurate statement.

The beginning of Stan's guide says that all that is necessary is the SN, water, and fasting. All else is for comfort.

The threads that have gathered anecdotal accounts of successes and failures show that some people vomit with antiemetics (and still ctb), while some don't vomit without them.

So I would say it's a personal choice to skip antiemetics, and that one should not be put off by the method if they cannot obtain them.

It's a view shared by many, and one I strongly stand by. It's important for people to understand that the fact that there are exceptions (i.e. people who took antiemetics and still vomited, and people who did not take antiemetics and did not vomit), does not take away from the fact that, on average, you are less likely to vomit if you take antiemetics. Note that I am also including the relevant antipsychotics under the category of antiemetic for this purpose.

Think of it in terms of this analogy. There are people who wear seatbelts and still die in car crashes. There are people who don't wear seatbelts and survive car crashes. But you are still more likely to survive a car crash if you wear a seatbelt. The existence of those exceptions does not take away from the main principle. The main principle came about from both statistical analysis of crash data (who wore seatbelts and who did not, and how did this affect survival likelihood) and from an understanding of underlying physical principles (what happens to your body in a crash when you don't wear a seatbelt, is a head colliding with a windscreen harmful to our survival etc.).

Similarly, the principle that antiemetics reduce vomiting with SN (and thus help reduce both the unpleasantness of vomiting, and the possible overall failure of the attempt) would likely be backed both by analysis of the member accounts (the majority of members who took antiemetics did not vomit, the majority of members who did not take antiemetics did vomit) and from an understanding of the underlying physiological principles (SN poisoning often leads to vomiting, antiemetics often prevent vomiting). The existence of exceptions to this principle does not disprove the principle overall.

I do wish that people who treat antiemetics as such a casual part of the SN protocol would understand that it is about as rational as refusing to wear a seatbelt simply because some people have survived car crashes without them.

Note that I'm not saying antiemetics are absolutely essential to the SN protocol. Technically, only SN and water are essential. But antiemetics make the whole thing a lot more likely to work, and a lot more likely to be pleasant and free of nausea or vomiting.

If you can obtain antiemetics, then I absolutely recommend you do so. If you cannot, then you may still have success using SN alone. But bear in mind that this is a less favourable option for the reasons mentioned previously.

It is totally understandable that those who cannot obtain antiemetics may feel stressed about the increased likelihood of vomiting and failure. It is also understandable that they may try to reduce this stress by arguing to try to convince others (and ultimately themselves) that antiemetics are unimportant.

If you cannot obtain antiemetics, accept and acknowledge that this is a shortcoming to the peacefulness and viability of the SN method. Don't try to argue against their importance here, however, otherwise it just pushes others towards taking a less favourable option when they may not need to.

Similarly, if your car doesn't have a seatbelt but you urgently need to drive somewhere and cannot find an alternative, then you may choose to drive without a seatbelt. But understand that you are taking a safety risk in doing so, and don't lean out of the window and shout at other drivers that their own seatbelts are equally unimportant.

@VolatilePotato did only serequel no AE.
Check his posts for what he felt.
[...]

Yes, but Seroquel has antiemetic effects in the dose he took, so he did take an antiemetic.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@autumnal, that was an elegantly reasoned response.

I only take exception to two sentences:

If you cannot obtain antiemetics, accept and acknowledge that this is a shortcoming to the peacefulness and viability of the SN method.

I read it as a command, and I respectfully reject it. Even if it were posed as a suggestion, I have not seen any evidence yet that the lack of an antiemetic reduces viability, only peacefulness, so I cannot and do not accept or acknowledge this assertion. I accept and acknowledge that it is your stance, but do not take it on for myself, nor insist that others do so, however I would advise that it would be wise for anyone to consider your recommendation while doing their due diligence in researching and arriving at their own conclusions.

Don't try to argue against their importance here, however, otherwise it just pushes others towards taking a less favourable option when they may not need to.

I read it as a command, which I respectfully reject. I do not agree that it pushes anyone, and I don't take responsibility for doing what I am not doing.

First, I have faith in others' ability to think for themselves, to be autonomous, and to take responsibility for their actions, including doing their own research, coming to their own conclusions, and choosing for themselves how to proceed. I do not view other members as incapable or of lesser intelligence such that they need someone to make this determination for them.

Second, I see that many people fear they cannot do the method because they don't have an antiemetic, so while you may see me as pushing someone to act unreasonably or unfavorably, I am in fact encouraging them to not allow the lack of one to keep them from their choice. This is because, imo, sufficient research was done to say with confidence by Stan and PN* that it is not a necessity but an adjunct, and there is sufficient anecdotal evidence to support that assertion.

*Please correct me if I'm wrong and PN states it is a necessary part of the regimen.

 

[Living sucks]

The question asked by OP was, Can I Take SN without any medication? Not, should I take SN without medication?
The answer is yes you can. However you should research the SN attempts failures and successes resource and read as many accounts as you can, making note of who took meds and who didn't and what they reported. And you should research the megathread and stans guide and make that judgement on your own.

 

[autumnal]

@autumnal, that was an elegantly reasoned response.

I only take exception to two sentences:

If you cannot obtain antiemetics, accept and acknowledge that this is a shortcoming to the peacefulness and viability of the SN method.

I read it as a command, and I respectfully reject it. Even if it were posed as a suggestion, I have not seen any evidence yet that the lack of an antiemetic reduces viability, only peacefulness, so I cannot and do not accept or acknowledge this assertion. I accept and acknowledge that it is your stance, but do not take it on for myself, nor insist that others do so, however I would advise that it would be wise for anyone to consider your recommendation while doing their due diligence in researching and arriving at their own conclusions.

Don't try to argue against their importance here, however, otherwise it just pushes others towards taking a less favourable option when they may not need to.

I read it as a command, which I respectfully reject. I do not agree that it pushes anyone, and I don't take responsibility for doing what I am not doing.

First, I have faith in others' ability to think for themselves, to be autonomous, and to take responsibility for their actions, including doing their own research, coming to their own conclusions, and choosing for themselves how to proceed. I do not view other members as incapable or of lesser intelligence such that they need someone to make this determination for them.

Second, I see that many people fear they cannot do the method because they don't have an antiemetic, so while you may see me as pushing someone to act unreasonably or unfavorably, I am in fact encouraging them to not allow the lack of one to keep them from their choice. This is because, imo, sufficient research was done to say with confidence by Stan and PN* that it is not a necessity but an adjunct, and there is sufficient anecdotal evidence to support that assertion.

*Please correct me if I'm wrong and PN states it is a necessary part of the regimen.

Thanks for your feedback.

I certainly wasn't making any commands. Everything is a suggestion. However, there will be some suggestions that are more important or expressed forcefully than others. However, on rereading my post, I think the force of my suggestion was more directed at people as a whole rather than you specifically.

The PPH recommends an antiemetic to prevent vomiting. I am unsure why Stan's opinions differ from those of the PPH.

I do appreciate your glass-half-full approach to empowering those unable to obtain antiemetics to still be able to use the SN method. My intended targets are not those individuals, rather those who could obtain antiemetics but are unsure as to whether they are recommended. To answer that question, I would place more value in the opinions of the medical doctors who wrote the PPH, than in the opinion of Stan. No disrespect intended to Stan, his guide is absolutely brilliant and very comprehensive. But (and I don't claim to know his full history or background) to my knowledge he wasn't a medical doctor.

I don't disagree with your view of members as being capable of making their own decisions. However, while suicide itself is a fundamental and accessible decision that any person can make, understanding the mechanisms behind it are often medical questions in areas that most people understandably lack experience with. So in that regard, people can be easily led or misled by opinions from those they believe are more knowledgeable than themselves. In that sense, there is a danger in people seeing incorrect information without accompanying clarification or correction of this information. Note that I am talking more broadly here than just about your response.

I am constantly surprised that there are users here who have read Stan's Guide but not the SN section of the PPH. I would strongly urge all users to read the PPH, even if you ultimately choose to place more credibility in other sources.

The question asked by OP was, Can I Take SN without any medication? Not, should I take SN without medication?
The answer is yes you can. However you should research the SN attempts failures and successes resource and read as many accounts as you can, making note of who took meds and who didn't and what they reported. And you should research the megathread and stans guide and make that judgement on your own.

With respect, that's being a bit pedantic. Obviously one 'can' do almost anything. The important question is whether doing so is a good idea in the opinions of other users. I think that distinction is the crux of what the user was asking. Otherwise there would be almost no point in the methods forum, with people just consuming bleach and antifreeze willy-nilly because they 'can' do so.

 

[Living sucks]

.
With respect, that's being a bit pedantic. Obviously one 'can' do almost anything. The important question is whether doing so is a good idea in the opinions of other users. I think that distinction is the crux of what the user was asking. Otherwise there would be almost no point in the methods aspect forum, with people just consuming bleach and antifreeze willy-nilly because they 'can' do so.

It's why I answer the direct question and then put, However. Or But. ... and always point the user in the right direction to decide for themself. Using methods forum and resource compilation etc. Alway trying to give examples to read.
The way it's worded above it's making it seem as if I didn't direct them to the resource.,
it's very different, someone who is asking about meds with SN vs drinking bleach or antifreeze. The meds are recommended but also subjective... where the bleach and antifreeze are straight up NO!