Legal pitfalls of psychiatric research

Background The increasing complexity of psychiatric research, including rec ent attempts to evaluate mental health legislation, suggests legal advice m ay be valuable in a wide range of research contexts. Aims We aim to illustrate both the legal pitfalls of research in psychiatry and the potential for solutions if the methods are carefully chosen. Method Two examples of research are subject to legal analysis, one involvin g advance directives, the other the random discharge of compulsory out-pati ents. Results This analysis illustrates that participation in research may expose clinicians to additional forms of liability, but the legal risks can be mi nimised through changes in the methods or additional safeguards. Conclusions Collaboration between academic law and psychiatry can enrich re search agendas and avoid serious legal pitfalls. We argue that sound legal advice should be sought at the planning stage of research in psychiatry, bu t the fear of liability should not lead to overly defensive research practi ces. The aim should be to strike the right balance between avoiding unaccep table exposure to liability and stifling innovative research. Declaration of interest The clinical trial of advance directives is funded by the NHS Research and Development Executive, London.