Citation

Andriessen K. Crisis 2023; 44(1): 1-6.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2023, International Association for Suicide Prevention, Publisher Hogrefe Publishing)

DOI

10.1027/0227-5910/a000899

PMID

36752309

Abstract

Research is essential to improve our understanding and prevention of suicidal behavior, and to alleviate its impact on society. While no one will question the usefulness of research in this field, designing and conducting suicide-related studies entails ethical issues, many of which are not straightforward to address (Hom et al., 2017; Nugent et al., 2019). Important ethical challenges arise from features that are central to suicide research, such as the involvement of participants who might have an increased risk of suicide and asking suicide-related questions of participants (Fisher et al., 2002; Oquendo et al., 2004; Pearson et al., 2001). As both researchers and institutional review boards or human research ethics committees (referred to here as "research ethics committees") have a role in designing suicide prevention studies, this editorial discusses tensions that have been noted between these two parties and their views on dealing with ethical issues in suicide research. It advocates for the use of consensus recommendations encompassing evidence-based and lived-experience informed guidance and for thorough collaboration to enhance and sustain the design and conduct of ethical suicide research contributing to effective suicide prevention.
Tensions Between Researchers and Research Ethics Committees

The literature indicates that researchers often receive concerns from their research ethics committees regarding participant safety, specifically regarding the inclusion of people considered at risk of suicide, as there is a perception that this may cause undue distress and potentially conflict with the researcher's duty of care (Gibson et al., 2013; Lakeman & Fitzgerald, 2009a). However, research has demonstrated that participants can safely take part in suicide studies and that, in fact, asking questions about suicide may have beneficial effects for participants, such as providing a welcome opportunity to talk about their experiences (Andriessen et al., 2018; Bender et al., 2019; Blades et al., 2018). Nonetheless, this does not diminish the duty of care of the researcher, nor the primary responsibility of a research ethics committee to oversee the safety of participants and the ethical conduct of research (Guillemin et al., 2012; Hom et al., 2017). As such, on the one hand, researchers sometimes have viewed research ethics committees as being paternalistic and focused on protecting the institutions at the cost of obstructing research by excluding those who might benefit from the research (Edwards et al., 2004; Guillemin et al., 2012). On the other hand, research ethics committees worry that researchers may attribute too much discretionary power to the committees, while they rather see themselves as facilitators of high-quality research (Barnard et al., 2021; Klitzman, 2011). Thus, the tensions between researchers and research ethics committees appear to relate to diverging views on their responsibilities and roles in the research process, crystallized around ethical issues in designing and conducting suicide research...

Language: en

Keywords

Humans; *Suicide Prevention