So I have to make my position very clear here.
I am in no way denying the need for an independent ethics approval process, within either the academy or the NHS. The need to ensure absolute protection for vulnerable groups and individuals is paramount. Ethics reviews also ensure research methodologies and rationale are robust. As such this process maintains and ideally improves the quality and scope of research over time as long as those reviewing submissions are up-to-date
Bringing me to the point that I want to make.
I am studying Mental Health Recovery at Masters level. The main values and principles of this concept are those of being person-centred, of empowering the individual, of moving away from the medical-model and avoiding labels. Instead, the philosophy of recovery is about allowing people the benefit of a self-determined identity. Most importantly, to me at least, it’s about returning to people their sense of agency and avoiding institutionalisation.
Why then, when I discuss with my supervisor my final dissertation do I find out that the fact that I am working with autistic people, automatically
Being autistic is a difference, not a disorder, or an illness, or even
You can be autistic and vulnerable, no doubt about it, but you can also be neurotypical and vulnerable. You don’t automatically need NHS ethics approval if you are working with neurotypical particpants.
My project was a self-selecting group of individuals who would not be sought through mental health providers because I did not wish to skew my data. Biases in medicine already exist towards a male-centred presentation and the fact that more women who receive a positive diagnosis tend to have more mental health distress and more severe traits of autism means I would not be able to explore what being autistic means to those who also
It makes me really angry when a whole group of people have their identity co-opted by
Self-identified autistic women who are struggling, who do need support, are then denied such because they don’t fit the stereotype that has been perpetuated by doctors and researchers for decades. The need to categorise people absolutely not only denies vulnerable individuals and families support but also potentially delays research that could help change this situation for the better.
Even though my masters would have been a small step along the path I hoped to tread, it would have given me a chance to commit to some exploratory research and scope out my ideas more
Ethics are vital for the safety of participants and ensuring projects are of the highest quality, but in their current form, which is still governed by medical-model diagnostic assumptions we still have a long way to go before we can say our research is