In health-care settings, asking about trauma is recognised as good practice. Yet in research studies, whether to address trauma and how is contested.
Some studies prioritise inclusive samples and questions about lived experience. Others avoid potentially retraumatising topics and exclude people considered too vulnerable to participate. While ethical review and safeguarding is essential, at what point does protection become paternalism, and who gets to decide where that line is drawn? Just as harm to participants is unethical, might exclusion from research – at times – also be unethical and a form of epistemic harm?
For further information and the article, please see: Risk, responsibility, and choice in research ethics – The Lancet Psychiatry
Photo credit: fizkes / Shutterstock.com
When economists estimate the health, social, and economic costs of violence, they often apply the common economic practice of ‘discounting’. Discounting involves reducing the estimated value of the future relative to the present, year by year, by a given percentage.
We argue that economists should more fully recognise the longer-term harms of violence in their cost-benefit analyses and re-examine the practice of discounting future health costs. Such a change could lead to a re-evaluation of the level of public funds to invest in violence prevention and support the health needs of victims.
Trafficking is used as a case study to illustrate the impact of discounting on costing violence.
For further information and the article, please see: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2022.858337/full?utm_source
