Research ethics approval and discrimination

Abstract

Comments on an article by N. Galappathie et al. (see record 2013-38885-005). Galappathie et al’s study of detained patients’ awareness of the mental health review tribunal (MHRT). We applaud their decision to regard their study as part of service evaluation rather than as a research project requiring National Research Ethics Service Committee (NRESC) approval. The NRESC which reviewed the application did not have a mental health patients’ representative, carers’ representative or mental health professional as its member. Therefore, it sought expert opinion from a retired clinical psychologist. The NRESC ruled that ‘the study should not be done in the acute phase of treatment when participants are detained and it would be more appropriate once they have been discharged. This would remove concerns about the ability of the participants to give informed consent whilst under detention and in a vulnerable condition’. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)