ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2022
Suicide Risk Assessments: A Scientific and Ethical Critique.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nurse and Other Healthcare Managers' Experiences and Recommendations for Patient Incident Reporting Processes and Real-Time Software Development: A Qualitative Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Influences on prescribing in borderline personality disorder: insights from health care professionals: a qualitative interview study.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Suicidal and self-harm behaviors in emergency psychiatry: bridging risk assessment and clinical decision-making.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Comparing structured versus unstructured suicide risk assessment across health professionals and the general population: a vignette-based study protocol (CARE).Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Suicide Risk Assessments Understood as Medical Rituals: Functions and Implications from Societal and Medico-Ethical Perspectives.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Zero Suicide Model Implementation and Suicide Attempt Rates in Outpatient Mental Health Care.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Neurobiology and medico-legal aspects of suicides among older adults: a narrative review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Review
- Despair of the Intellect, but Hope of the Heart?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are widely held premises that suicide is almost exclusively the result of mental illness and there is "strong evidence for successfully detecting and managing suicidality in healthcare" (Hogan and Grumet, 2016). In this context, 'zero-suicide' policies have emerged, and suicide risk assessment tools have become a normative component of psychiatric practice. This essay discusses how suicide evolved from a moral to a medical problem and how, in an effort to reduce suicide, a paternalistic healthcare response emerged to predict those at high risk. The evidence for the premises is critiqued and shown to be problematic; and it is found that strong paternalistic interventions are being used more often than acknowledged. Using a Principles approach, the ethics of overriding autonomy in suicide prevention is considered. Ethical concerns are identified with the current approach which are potentially amplified by the use of these risk assessments. Furthermore, it is identified that the widespread use of risk assessments in health settings is equivalent to screening without regard to the ethical principles of screening. The essay concludes that this is unethical; that we should abandon the use of standardized suicide risk assessments and 'zero-suicide' policy; and that this may improve outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.