The moral and political economy of suicide prevention

Abstract

Suicide prevention occurs within a web of social, moral, and political relations that are acknowledged, yet rarely made explicit. In this work, I analyse these interrelations using concepts of moral and political economy to demonstrate how moral norms and values interconnect with political and economic systems to inform the way suicide prevention is structured, legitimated, and enacted. Suicide prevention is replete with ideologies of individualism, risk, and economic rationalism that translate into a specific set of social practices. These bring a number of ethical, procedural, and distributive considerations to the fore. Closer attention to these issues is needed to reflect the moral and political contexts in which decision-making about suicide prevention occurs, and the implications of these decisions for policy, practice, and for those whose lives they impact.

Critical suicide studies, between methodology and ethics: Introduction

“…For example, integrated, multicomponent, multilevel approaches that have evolved internationally over the past decade seek to provide high quality treatment and continuing care in combination with public health education to improve knowledge and attitudes towards mental health, suicide and help-seeking (World Health Organization, 2014). The ethical and political implications of these preventive activities have received considerable attention from critical suicide scholars in relation to ideologies of individualism, risk, and economic rationalism that bind suicide and its prevention with specific moral values, obligations and forms of prevention that are deeply rooted in political agendas and institutional arrangements for managing conduct (Fitzpatrick, 2021).…”

Self-inflicted. Deliberate. Death-intentioned. A critical policy analysis of UK suicide prevention policies 2009-2019

“…Suicide research more broadly has been criticised for taking a psycho-centric approach (Rimke, 2016), understanding suicide as the outcome of an individual’s mental illness, whilst failing to account for the role of socio-economic and political factors contributing to suicidal thoughts and attempts (Hjelmeland and Knizek, 2017). It has been argued that this individualistic and psychologised focus is in part motivated by a desire to appeal to clinical audiences, where clinicians may lack the power or resources to influence the wider conditions for living in which an individual is situated (Button, 2016; Fitzpatrick, 2021). In contrast, suicide prevention strategies, developed by governments, have the scope to consider immediate crisis intervention alongside more long-term planning to prevent suicide (Yip and Tang, 2021).…”

Young People’s Mental Health

“…Creating the right balance between the psychological and social terrain of mental health has been explicitly explored in the wider field of the sociology of health and illness and bears a closer look. For example, focusing on the related issue of suicide, Fitzpatrick ( 2022 : 113) draws attention to the “web of social, moral and political relations” within which suicide occurs, seeking to make these relations explicit through a framework of “moral and political economy.” Using the concept of the moral economy, Fitzpatrick shows how identifying “vulnerable individuals and groups to improve service and resource provision, the identification, assessment, monitoring and reduction of risk have become an integral part of professional and community action and judgement” (2022: 118). An unintended effect of this development, Fitzpatrick argues, is that the containment of risk overrides “care practices that acknowledge human agency and the dignity of risk and choice” (2022: 118–9) and positions the individual (solely) as the locus of interventions.…”

“…An unintended effect of this development, Fitzpatrick argues, is that the containment of risk overrides “care practices that acknowledge human agency and the dignity of risk and choice” (2022: 118–9) and positions the individual (solely) as the locus of interventions. The focus on individuals, he argues, emphasises social obligations and personal responsibilities to be well by those who are not well, “through education programs that target mental health literacy, help-seeking, stress management, resilience, problem solving and coping skills” (Fitzpatrick 2022 : 119). The pressure on individuals to take responsibility for their wellbeing, Fitzpatrick argues, is bound to “an economy of moral values and norms” that defines “morally good or bad actions and practices” (2022: 120) and obscures dissenting views which offer an alternative to medicalised approaches to mental health.…”

“…The pressure on individuals to take responsibility for their wellbeing, Fitzpatrick argues, is bound to “an economy of moral values and norms” that defines “morally good or bad actions and practices” (2022: 120) and obscures dissenting views which offer an alternative to medicalised approaches to mental health. Alternative approaches include recognition of the social determinants of wellbeing, including “the dispossession of First Nations people, economic adversity, environmental conditions, and other social issues” (Fitzpatrick 2022 : 120). The point I take from his work is that the issue of young people’s mental health: how it is defined, and how it is treated, is framed by a political and moral economy that needs to be made explicit.…”