What Is The Worst Way To Die?

[Trausti]

Most of us should have uneventful, relatively quick, and painless deaths. (Hopefully) But if you're among the unlucky few who face torment at the end, what's the worst way to go? I'd say being burned alive is at the top. I used to think drowning was not so miserable until I saw one of those ISIS videos. Of course, a slow torture would be bad; death by a thousand cuts and all that.

 

[repoman]

Several meat slicers on each appendage and you are also being bruleed with an oxyacetylene torch. Before this you are given narcan.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Burning is bad but it's fairly quick, I can't see it being the worst.

 

[bilby]

Anything with prolonged pain. Given the disinclination for most governments to allow assisted suicide, that turns out to be the reality for many of us; Apparently it is vitally important that a person, who is in so much pain that only a lethal dose of opiates will relive their suffering, be allowed to suffer for as long as it is possible to keep them alive. Because God loves us.

The best way to die would be to be atomized by an effect propagating faster than nerve impulses - a large and very close explosion would not be something you could ever know about, as the brain would cease to exist before it was able to receive any pain signals. The brain itself has no pain receptors.

Of course, it needs to be a very large explosion to atomize a human head completely and rapidly. And you need to be close enough to it that the lag between the radiant heat and the disruptive shock-wave is shorter than your reflex reaction time - unless it is so large that the radiative/heating impulse is itself enough to atomize the skull and brain. But a direct hit from a large explosive munition would likely be pretty painless; you would never hear it coming.

 

[thebeave]

Being slowly lowered into a vat of acid. Not good.

 

[James Brown]

Anything with prolonged pain. Given the disinclination for most governments to allow assisted suicide, that turns out to be the reality for many of us; Apparently it is vitally important that a person, who is in so much pain that only a lethal dose of opiates will relive their suffering, be allowed to suffer for as long as it is possible to keep them alive. Because God loves us.

The best way to die would be to be atomized by an effect propagating faster than nerve impulses - a large and very close explosion would not be something you could ever know about, as the brain would cease to exist before it was able to receive any pain signals. The brain itself has no pain receptors.

Of course, it needs to be a very large explosion to atomize a human head completely and rapidly. And you need to be close enough to it that the lag between the radiant heat and the disruptive shock-wave is shorter than your reflex reaction time - unless it is so large that the radiative/heating impulse is itself enough to atomize the skull and brain. But a direct hit from a large explosive munition would likely be pretty painless; you would never hear it coming.

Somewhere I read about a plane that smacked into the side of a fog-shrouded mountain at 500 miles per hour. The author noted that the passengers would have died before they could have any inkling that something was wrong. No approaching wall of fire and debris, no sense of panic or alarm, nothing. Just instantly dead.

Yes, that would definitely be the best way to go.

 

[J842P]

Leaving aside something like a sadistic murder or torture, I'd say probably dementia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anything with prolonged pain. Given the disinclination for most governments to allow assisted suicide, that turns out to be the reality for many of us; Apparently it is vitally important that a person, who is in so much pain that only a lethal dose of opiates will relive their suffering, be allowed to suffer for as long as it is possible to keep them alive. Because God loves us.

The best way to die would be to be atomized by an effect propagating faster than nerve impulses - a large and very close explosion would not be something you could ever know about, as the brain would cease to exist before it was able to receive any pain signals. The brain itself has no pain receptors.

Of course, it needs to be a very large explosion to atomize a human head completely and rapidly. And you need to be close enough to it that the lag between the radiant heat and the disruptive shock-wave is shorter than your reflex reaction time - unless it is so large that the radiative/heating impulse is itself enough to atomize the skull and brain. But a direct hit from a large explosive munition would likely be pretty painless; you would never hear it coming.

I don't think it even needs to be that large a boom. Neural impulses are not all that fast, the shock wave is something on the order of 100x as fast. All you need is a charge big enough to disrupt the brain tissue as it passes through.

 

[snoiduspoitus]

Impalement.

Where done properly the dull stake comes out the mouth or throat. Just nasty.

 

[Trausti]

Burning is bad but it's fairly quick, I can't see it being the worst.

Fairly quick? Eh. People who are burned to death typically verbalize their pain. It may take a couple minutes before you actually die. What gets me is that all of us reflexively respond to touching a hot object or being burned. What if you felt that pain but could not reflex away. All over your body? Ouch.

 

[Shake]

Two Biblical methods come immediately to mind: stoning and crucifixion.

At least with stoning, you could hope someone delivers a headshot which would either kill you instantly or at least render you unconscious.

eta: drawing and quartering sounds pretty horrific, too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Going down in an airplane from up high, especially with your young child at your side. Probably the least physically painful deaths, but one of the most mentally excruciating ones.

 

[TSwizzle]

Most of us should have uneventful, relatively quick, and painless deaths. (Hopefully) But if you're among the unlucky few who face torment at the end, what's the worst way to go? I'd say being burned alive is at the top. I used to think drowning was not so miserable until I saw one of those ISIS videos. Of course, a slow torture would be bad; death by a thousand cuts and all that.

Drowning or burning would be the worst. I think about Paul Walker who died in a car crash. There is speculation he was semi conscious at least and couldn't release his seat belt. Ugh. Or if you are trapped in a vehicle that is underwater and the vehicle starts to sink and you can't get out. Terrible.

 

[bilby]

Going down in an airplane from up high, especially with your young child at your side. Probably the least physically painful deaths, but one of the most mentally excruciating ones.

It takes at least 3 minutes to fall from 40,000 feet (although a dive under power could be shorter).

That's a pretty long time.

Having said that, in 1972 at the age of 22, Vesna Vulović survived a fall from FL330 (approximately 33,000 feet, or 10km) when the aircraft (a DC-9 operated by Yugoslav airline JAT) on which she was working as a flight attendant was blown up by terrorists; She died last year, aged 66.

So it's not certain to kill you.

 

[sharon45]

Most of us should have uneventful, relatively quick, and painless deaths. (Hopefully) But if you're among the unlucky few who face torment at the end, what's the worst way to go? I'd say being burned alive is at the top. I used to think drowning was not so miserable until I saw one of those ISIS videos. Of course, a slow torture would be bad; death by a thousand cuts and all that.

Drowning or burning would be the worst. I think about Paul Walker who died in a car crash. There is speculation he was semi conscious at least and couldn't release his seat belt. Ugh. Or if you are trapped in a vehicle that is underwater and the vehicle starts to sink and you can't get out. Terrible.

I had a science teacher in seventh grade who specifically thought that dying from drowning was about the best way to go.

 

[bilby]

Drowning or burning would be the worst. I think about Paul Walker who died in a car crash. There is speculation he was semi conscious at least and couldn't release his seat belt. Ugh. Or if you are trapped in a vehicle that is underwater and the vehicle starts to sink and you can't get out. Terrible.

I had a science teacher in seventh grade who specifically thought that dying from drowning was about the best way to go.

I am a little surprised that you gave him a choice.

 

[sharon45]

I had a science teacher in seventh grade who specifically thought that dying from drowning was about the best way to go.

I am a little surprised that you gave him a choice.

If I had a choice then, I would not have even been in seventh grade, or any grade, for that matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Burning is bad but it's fairly quick, I can't see it being the worst.

Fairly quick? Eh. People who are burned to death typically verbalize their pain. It may take a couple minutes before you actually die. What gets me is that all of us reflexively respond to touching a hot object or being burned. What if you felt that pain but could not reflex away. All over your body? Ouch.

A few minutes is fairly quick compared to some particularly nasty ways to die. Say, trapped against a fire ant nest.

There are plants whose toxins can drive people to suicide from the pain. Imagine taking a tumble into a patch of them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Going down in an airplane from up high, especially with your young child at your side. Probably the least physically painful deaths, but one of the most mentally excruciating ones.

It takes at least 3 minutes to fall from 40,000 feet (although a dive under power could be shorter).

That's a pretty long time.

Having said that, in 1972 at the age of 22, Vesna Vulović survived a fall from FL330 (approximately 33,000 feet, or 10km) when the aircraft (a DC-9 operated by Yugoslav airline JAT) on which she was working as a flight attendant was blown up by terrorists; She died last year, aged 66.

So it's not certain to kill you.

She had an advantage--she still had a bit of wreckage around her and she went into forest. That would tend to break her fall while protecting her against the lighter impacts from the trees. (It wouldn't save you if you came down right on the trunk or the like, though.)

The one that is most remarkable is a guy who jumped from 18,000' without a parachute. He blacked out on the way down and woke up in a snowbank. As it was wartime the incident wasn't properly investigated but it appears he hit a pine tree just right, then deep snow. He couldn't find any injuries that he attributed to the fall (he was already injured when he jumped.)

There were also some Russian experiments with using paratroopers without parachutes. The issue was whether jumping into deep snow without a chute was safer than hanging there under a chute while the enemy was shooting at you.

 

[bilby]

It takes at least 3 minutes to fall from 40,000 feet (although a dive under power could be shorter).

That's a pretty long time.

Having said that, in 1972 at the age of 22, Vesna Vulović survived a fall from FL330 (approximately 33,000 feet, or 10km) when the aircraft (a DC-9 operated by Yugoslav airline JAT) on which she was working as a flight attendant was blown up by terrorists; She died last year, aged 66.

So it's not certain to kill you.

She had an advantage--she still had a bit of wreckage around her and she went into forest. That would tend to break her fall while protecting her against the lighter impacts from the trees. (It wouldn't save you if you came down right on the trunk or the like, though.)

The one that is most remarkable is a guy who jumped from 18,000' without a parachute. He blacked out on the way down and woke up in a snowbank. As it was wartime the incident wasn't properly investigated but it appears he hit a pine tree just right, then deep snow. He couldn't find any injuries that he attributed to the fall (he was already injured when he jumped.)

There were also some Russian experiments with using paratroopers without parachutes. The issue was whether jumping into deep snow without a chute was safer than hanging there under a chute while the enemy was shooting at you.

Well any fall over about 450m (1,500ft) is going to result in the same impact velocity for a person not contained in wreckage. Vulović was inside the fuselage, which would have had a higher terminal velocity due to streamlining, and likely hit the ground a LOT faster.