Bloor viaduct "Luminous Veil" a $6 million life saver
But can Toronto prevent public suicides?
By Sarah Houghton
Issue date: 10/23/03 Section: Opinions
Critics also point out the fact that in the years that it took the City to complete the project, which was first proposed in 1998, 94 more suicides were committed from the Viaduct. As an article in the Globe and Mail stated, similar suicide-preventing projects were constructed on the Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol England, in a matter of only six months.
But in fact there are a number of good reasons to support the veil:
Many suicides are spontanious, and the reaction from some locations elicit a more impulsive reaction than others. The Viaduct was just one of these locations, because of its previously waist-high wall and vast view. The argument that individuals will simply chose another location was proven untrue during an experiment with the Duke Ellington Bridge in Washington.
The veil may appear to be a “band-aid” solution, addressing the symptom, rather than the caues, of a larger, societal problem. However, if a suicide is prevented, often times the individuals will go on to receive psychiatric treatment.
Although $2.5 in tax payers money seems like a large amount, the costs incurred from a suicide are also considerable. One estimate put the number at $800,000, when emergency medical services, police investigations, autopsies, and funeral costs are calculated.
The view may be considered a barrier to the view of the Don Valley, and an imposition on one of Toronto’s heritage structures. However, the design was awarded with the 1999 Canadian Architect Award of Excellence, therby adding to Toronto’s cultural appeal.
Despite these good points, I can’t help but wonder, would the $6 million that was spent building the Veil be better spend in preventative care? What kind of progress could be made with a contribution of that sum to a psychiatric hospital? What if that money had been spent on research into preventing schizophrenia, or finding better ways to treat depression?
In the long run, are suicide rates in Toronto actually going to decline, or simply suicides from the Bloor St. Viaduct? Will these individuals simply find an alternative place to commit suicide? I’m no expert, but I agree with the critics that the Veil is somewhat of a “band-aid” solution.
Nonetheless, the City was right to react to an issue that had long since become a serious problem in Toronto.
Suicide is not a selfless activity. While it is largely considered a private matter for families, and beyond the realm of public media coverage, the numerous suicides that have taken place at the Bloor St. Viaduct make this particular issue a public matter. Health care workers, police, pedestrians, and drivers on the Don Valley Parkway are all affected by the suicides.
The public aspect of the Bloor St. Viaduct suicides have rendered the Luminous Veil an effective and necessary measure.
The City of Toronto cannot truly prevent suicide. It can’t eliminate our tall buildings, concrete pavement, traffic, and sharp objects. But despite what critics say, the Veil was not a waste of tax payers money.
It if prevents even just one suicide, it can be justified.
But in fact there are a number of good reasons to support the veil:
Many suicides are spontanious, and the reaction from some locations elicit a more impulsive reaction than others. The Viaduct was just one of these locations, because of its previously waist-high wall and vast view. The argument that individuals will simply chose another location was proven untrue during an experiment with the Duke Ellington Bridge in Washington.
The veil may appear to be a “band-aid” solution, addressing the symptom, rather than the caues, of a larger, societal problem. However, if a suicide is prevented, often times the individuals will go on to receive psychiatric treatment.
Although $2.5 in tax payers money seems like a large amount, the costs incurred from a suicide are also considerable. One estimate put the number at $800,000, when emergency medical services, police investigations, autopsies, and funeral costs are calculated.
The view may be considered a barrier to the view of the Don Valley, and an imposition on one of Toronto’s heritage structures. However, the design was awarded with the 1999 Canadian Architect Award of Excellence, therby adding to Toronto’s cultural appeal.
Despite these good points, I can’t help but wonder, would the $6 million that was spent building the Veil be better spend in preventative care? What kind of progress could be made with a contribution of that sum to a psychiatric hospital? What if that money had been spent on research into preventing schizophrenia, or finding better ways to treat depression?
In the long run, are suicide rates in Toronto actually going to decline, or simply suicides from the Bloor St. Viaduct? Will these individuals simply find an alternative place to commit suicide? I’m no expert, but I agree with the critics that the Veil is somewhat of a “band-aid” solution.
Nonetheless, the City was right to react to an issue that had long since become a serious problem in Toronto.
Suicide is not a selfless activity. While it is largely considered a private matter for families, and beyond the realm of public media coverage, the numerous suicides that have taken place at the Bloor St. Viaduct make this particular issue a public matter. Health care workers, police, pedestrians, and drivers on the Don Valley Parkway are all affected by the suicides.
The public aspect of the Bloor St. Viaduct suicides have rendered the Luminous Veil an effective and necessary measure.
The City of Toronto cannot truly prevent suicide. It can’t eliminate our tall buildings, concrete pavement, traffic, and sharp objects. But despite what critics say, the Veil was not a waste of tax payers money.
It if prevents even just one suicide, it can be justified.
