1. Introduction
Year by year, the field of psychiatry faces an escalating crisis, particularly concerning children and adolescents. This crisis stems from the rising prevalence of mental disorders among the population and the constrained access to professional psychiatric and psychological assistance. The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the associated social isolation, has further exacerbated this trend. The surge in mental disorders has also coincided with an increase in suicide attempts. Over the past few years, scientific reports have emerged on the utilization of online-acquired ‘suicide kits’ for self-harm. These kits typically consist of various compounds with distinct mechanisms of action, whose simultaneous use may induce severe, life-threatening effects. Additionally, there is evidence that adolescents can learn to assemble such ‘kits’ through internet forums.
2. Methods
Post-mortem biological matrices and evidence found at the scene were subjected to analysis using a variety of techniques, including LC-MS/MS, GC-MS/MS, and HS-GC-FID/FID. This comprehensive approach covered a broad spectrum of substances, encompassing drugs, illicit substances, NPS, and volatile compounds. Information pertaining to the circumstances of death was obtained from prosecutors or judicial authorities.
3. Results
The authors will scrutinize the causes of death concerning the composition of ‘suicide kits’, explaining the mode of action, toxicity, and concentrations of the substances identified in post-mortem matrices. Challenges in interpretation arising from factors such as inappropriate collection and storage conditions of post-mortem materials and the instability of xenobiotics will be discussed.
4. Conclusions
The authors’ toxicological findings corroborate recorded suicide cases, involving both purchased ‘suicide kits’ and self-composed multi-xenobiotic mixtures. In instances of suspected suicidal death resulting from xenobiotics, the authors recommend conducting potentially extensive toxicological analyses utilizing various analytical techniques. The final interpretation of toxicological results must hinge on a thorough understanding of the entire case file, underscoring the necessity for close collaboration among forensic toxicologists, pathologists, and judicial authorities.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, K.N.; methodology, K.N.; validation, K.N., K.T., O.W.; formal analysis, K.N., K.T., O.W., A.C.-K.; resources, K.N., K.T., O.W., A.C.-K.; data curation, K.N.; writing—original draft preparation, K.N.; writing—review and editing, K.N., P.S., M.Z.; visualization, K.N.; supervision, P.S., M.Z.; project administration, M.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The research was conducted at the request of the prosecutor, therefore it was not subject to approval by the bioethical committee. To publish cases, we have obtained written consent from the prosecutors.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets utilized and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
| Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
, 