Citation

Hazell P, King RR. Aust. N. Zeal. J. Psychiatry 1996; 30(5): 633-642.

Affiliation

Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1996, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

8902170

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To present arguments for and against the provision of curriculum-based suicide prevention programs in schools. METHOD: The authors developed their arguments independently, based on the available literature on school-based programs, prior to debating the topic at a national conference on suicide prevention. RESULTS: The rationale for school-based programs is that the school has the responsibility: to resolve problems that interfere with education; to teach health education; and to acknowledge a duty of care to parents and to the community as well as to youth. Primary prevention programs in schools are not aimed at so-called 'at-risk' students, but potential 'helpers', based on the knowledge that peers are a primary support for troubled adolescents. One measure of the efficacy of school-based prevention programs must be the extent to which there is an increase in the tendency for adolescents to turn to adults for help. There is ample evidence that increasing the tendency for adolescents to approach adults for help is achievable. The argument against such programs is that evidence from evaluation research suggests that they are ineffective, inefficient, not universally acceptable, and of questionable safety. CONCLUSIONS: Those persuaded by the positive argument will wish to see these programs adopted in all Australian secondary schools. Those persuaded by the negative argument will recommend that suicide prevention resources be allocated to activities other than school-based suicide education programs.

Language: en