Talk:Sarco pod

Unanswered questions

> "Access to the Sarco will be controlled by an online test to gauge mental fitness. If applicants pass, they receive an access code to a Sarco device that works for 24 hours."

I know it isn't addressed in the cited work, but the article could benefit from answering some of the logistical questions raised by this blurb. Does the system notify a funeral home or next-of-kin to claim the body (with precautions for falsified information or users with no surviving kin)? If transportation is permitted, does this mean the system admins will head out into the wilderness to retrieve the pod, in potentially hard-to-reach and/or dangerous locations? If reuse is a factor, can the pod be easily be cleaned of post-death residues (and who has that job)? etc. ~ Eidako (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eidako yeah, that would provide useful legal context, as well as practical context (btw I don't advocate for getting in the pod)

the point about intervention in the wilderness is interesting, especially since doing rescue work is like, a real concern when it comes to the selfishness of the choice of death... see for example, in natural disaster evacuations... part of why you ought to evacuate is to protect not just you but the living. In another post, I said the part of the article which gave me the most strongly terrible vibes was the bit about the transparent/opaque window option. what's the deal there? I sincerely doubt there's any practice other than user preference, but what's the real point of one or the other? just vibe you have before you get in there to die?

In traditional death formats the living's form of participation in the death process and disposal of the corpse is decided by ritual usually/when possible. what's the ritual here, if any? Or does it seem like it was more a one-off ln2 murder box some US woman in her 60s stepped into? surely she has a glass of wine with her friends first right? riiiiiight??? etc.

the lack of info answering this question is part of why I don't particularly want the article to exist at all. 2601:19B:E00:21C0:393A:F58E:EF76:AD94 (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@2601:19B:E00:21C0:393A:F58E:EF76:AD94 rescue work is not expected to be a concern of this exit mens if it is legitimized fully and concretely, but since it's sub-legal now, it's actually a major part of how we react to production and use of devices like this, that's why I think talking about first responders matters.... it's the same way as how it matters in an opioid overdose eg. God knows if it happens in a burning building it's just a sad death nightmare. location securement seems pretty fucking important to me. 2601:19B:E00:21C0:393A:F58E:EF76:AD94 (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Bad Vibes

sorry, I am almost barely a wikipedia contributor, but I frequently contemplate death, and sometimes suicide (don't we all haha? Jk apparently we don't all??) and this article's tone imo could use work. what work? idk fully I'm not perfect.

however, the article feels very much to me as tho it is describing one cult-of-personality guy's hackneyed 3d printed death machine (I believe this is fact thank u article)

further it feels as though it is written by one guy, maybe the big inventor guy himself, in support of inventor guy, and maybe one other guy in opposition to that, coming in and trying to like, clean up editorial house.

this ambivalence in tone is not beneficial to anyone at all, other than maybe cult-of-personality guy, and it's a life-n-death topic, so I find that agitating. sloppiness which is so upsetting to me is not necessarily worth publishing here actually, imo. (I love free speech but hate driving people into potentially dark places w/out informing them as neutrally as possible.)

it's probably not easy to solve with just adding more detail, but I feel like it should either get like just a "CW: this lets you die on purpose. rarely used, not available to public. page under construction & we welcome input" notice, type note, or else, I dunno, um, I guess just be perfect and not quite as upsetting to me. to be clear, identity of the mastermind/inventor/whoever is the worst part to me, not just the recognition of (imo natural) human temptations/interest in euthanasia itself. I'm criticizing the specific vibe of the article as opposed to just being sad about the content.

one thing I found especially upsetting is the mention of the transparent vs obscured visual options for the window. if the device has been used once and it's a 3d printed death pod I don't get the deal. would you have like specialized pallbearers trotting you off to view stuff? death by asphyxiation has very few minutes to act in adult humans. the emphasis on the window reads to me as not just morbid but also promotional, but promotional in an intentionally nauseating way.

a contrastingly more informative article imo is, just pulling this out of my morbid ass btw, the article about the death penalty in Japan. I found this article, as well as other articles about penalized death, even in the US (which I promise, as a resident, is a nightmare), to be way less emotionally provocative and overall neutral. It really hit me in an impactful but fundamentally non-celebratory as well as non-pearlclutchy way when I read that, for example, in Japan, they only do capital punishment by long-death hanging. I was like "whoa, that seems really heavy because it seems super out-of-date to me as a Westerner. but at least the info is neutrally presented and I can see specific cases referenced - and I know they're well-docunented and not advertisments."

instead, this article feels like an advertisement, which is very inappropriate imo.

I'm sorry I can't provide more constructive input at this time. but I must reject the article verbally or else I won't be able to sleep well tonight.

PS I am safe and cozy etc currently in case anybody is concerned about me (pls do not be, I am just agitated, not provoked towards harm)

but someone who is impervious to the emotional reaction towards mortality must please god use analysis and writing skills on this article. this device got a ton of attention on social media in the past few months and I am sure it impacts other people than just me.

PS pain is bad and we will all die but I hope you, dear reader, get to live without too much pain for as long as you like and want to... stinky inventor guy I don't trust to feel this way... be careful about getting in the pod!!

Mods pls delete if this isn't constructive (I dunno how else to construct on a page about euthanasia) 2601:19B:E00:21C0:393A:F58E:EF76:AD94 (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@2601:19B:E00:21C0:393A:F58E:EF76:AD94 portraying it as a PRODUCT instead of a DEMO is what really gets my goat, the more I think about it. it's been used once, right? I hope? we'd know if more times riiiiiight? so stuff like "window options for the procuct" is just total horseshit. we'll never get user reviews people will want to trust for the options. so I don't think wikipedia should promote the options I think? if death via sarco pod gets legalized, which might be fine with me idk, I hope you and your death wrangler get that figured out in one-on-one discussions. getting too in-detail about customer options is really provocative, and provoking about euthanasia/suicide is Not The Play. 2601:19B:E00:21C0:393A:F58E:EF76:AD94 (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@2601:19B:E00:21C0:393A:F58E:EF76:AD94 hoping mods don't delete, I'm happy to come back to this later if anyone has questions helping me engage more. but for now, I've said as much as I can. thank u wikipedia community for making the awesomest part of the internet 🎶🎉 2601:19B:E00:21C0:393A:F58E:EF76:AD94 (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)