Restriction of access to means of suicide in veterinary workplaces: Protection, unintended consequences and complexity
Rosie Allister, Katie Moore, Amy Chandler, Alexandra Pitman, Alex Thomson, Wendy LorettoAbstract
Background
Workplace access to means of suicide has been theorised as a contributor to elevated veterinary suicide rates. Workplace interventions to reduce suicide deaths among veterinary professionals require understanding of how restriction of access is experienced.
Methods
Qualitative, semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 37 participants, eliciting narratives about experiences of restriction.
Results
Analysing data from 22 veterinary professionals with personal experience of suicidality and 21 adults bereaved by the suicide of a veterinary professional, we identified three approaches to restriction: collaborative, differential and universal. We identified two main themes: restriction as protective (emphasising the value of restriction in reducing or preventing veterinary suicides) and unintended consequences of restriction (highlighting negative effects of particular approaches to restriction). We also identified an overarching theme of complexity: accounts underlining the contested nature of restriction of access to means in veterinary practice.
Limitations
Method substitution was not present in this study but warrants further investigation.
Conclusion
Although complex, restriction of access to means of suicide can be considered in veterinary spaces. Restriction must carefully avoid adverse consequences, including humiliation, shaming and punitive approaches, which potentially increase risk. Any proposed changes must address concerns regarding animal welfare and factors such as increased burden of work.