E. Howe

In this issue of JCE, Baum-Baicker and Sisti present senior psychoanalysts’ views of wisdom.Although views on wisdom differ widely, there is agreement that when ethical conflicts arise, wisdom may be critical in bringing about an optimal result. Here I will present recent empirical findings on wisdom and the ways careproviders may acquire and apply it, especially in ethical conflicts. The findings are not well-known and may seem counterintuitive; I selected them, in large part, for those reasons. A core challenge may be to decide when to give patients standard care and when to make exceptions. In this issue of JCE, Baum-Baicker and Sisti discuss exceptions and Bursztajn and colleagues consider how these exceptions may be further validated as evidence-based treatments

Shared decision making (SDM) is the state of the art for clinicians’ communication with patients and surrogate decision makers. SDM involves give and take, in which all parties interact to maximize the autonomy of patients. In this article I summarize the core steps of SDM and explore ways to use it to benefit patients to the greatest extent. I review three articles included in this issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics that highlight additional approaches we can use to help patients and parents to see what may be in their own or their child’s best interest. I describe how these approaches can be used in most other medical fields. I explore ways to share information with patients that are outside the usual scope of SDM. Finally, I discuss how we might look, together with patients, at what all parties are feeling before we begin the process of SDM.

This introductory article presents some subtle and, perhaps, controversial aspects of providing care to adolescents who identify as transgender. I will describe (1) how praise from careproviders can benefit parents who have difficulty accepting the gender identity of their child that was not assigned at birth; (2) how adolescents who identify as transgender may follow the internet advice of peers on how to “con” careproviders; (3) how it may be difficult for careproviders to decide whether to further patients’ felt needs and to protect them, paternalistically, from making an irreversible decision they may later regret; and (4) how careproviders can benefit adolescents by taking the initiative to discuss sex and how to say “no.” I emphasize how careproviders who see these patients, even when they have no special expertise in this area, may be able to enhance patients’ equality in every respect, even when they otherwise might not choose to do so.

In this piece I discuss two ways in which providers may become able to treat patients better. The first is for them to encourage all medical parties, including medical students, to always speak up. The second is to take initiatives to learn of pain that patients feel but neither show nor spontaneously report. They may refer to this pain as invisible pain, often bitterly, in that others not seeing their pain judge them wrongly and harshly. Providers, once seeing this pain, are encouraged to then take additional measures to try to alleviate it. Clinical examples provided to illustrate the range of treatments providers may add are post-traumatic stress disorders, problems involving substance use, and hoarding disorders. Similar concerns regarding people who are deaf and hard of hearing are also addressed.

Ethics consultants’ grasp of ethical principles is ever improving. Yet, what still remains and will remain lacking is their ability to access factors that lie outside their conscious awareness and thus still effect suboptimal outcomes. This article will explore several ways in which these poor outcomes may occur. This discussion will include clinicians’ implicit biases, well-intentioned but nonetheless intrusive violations of patients’ privacy, and clinicians’ unwittingly connoting to patients and families that clinicians regard their moral values and conclusions as superior. I shall suggest several ways in which clinicians may seek to reduce these sources of bad outcomes or at least to do better when they occur.

Psychedelic treatments, particularly 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted and psilocybin-assisted therapies, have recently seen renewed interest in their clinical potential to treat various mental health conditions. Clinical trials for both MDMA-assisted and psilocybin-assisted therapies have shown to be highly efficacious for post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression. Recent research trials for psychedelic-assisted therapies (PAT) have demonstrated that although they are resource-intensive, their effects are rapid-acting, durable and cost-effective. These results have generated enthusiasm among researchers seeking to investigate psychedelic therapies in active-duty service members of the US military, particularly those with treatment refractory mental health conditions. At the same time, psychedelics remain in early stages of clinical investigation, have not yet achieved regulatory approval for general clinical use and may confer unique psychological and neurobiological effects that could raise novel ethical considerations when treating active-duty service members. Should psychedelics achieve regulatory approval, military relevant considerations may include issues of access to these treatments, appropriate procedures for informed consent, confidentiality standards, and possible unanticipated mental health risks and other psychological sequelae. A service member’s deployability, as well as their ability to return to full military duty following PAT, may also be of unique concern. The authors argue that MDMA-assisted therapy currently represents a promising treatment that should be more rapidly investigated as a clinical therapy for service members while still taking a measured approach that accounts for the many military-specific uncertainties that remain.

The primary task of ethics consultants is to work with patients—and sometimes also their families—to discern and then meet patients’ and families’ needs and wants to the extent possible. That is primarily a cognitive endeavor. Yet the feelings of patients and ethics consultants may determine what they can work together to accomplish. This article considers their feelings. It looks at sources of distrust and their hopedfor resolution, specific means to enhance patients’ decision making in their relationship with ethics consultants, and a new, highly different approach that may enhance their relationships more than most commonly used ways of relating.

In this article I will discuss how clinicians might best treat adolescents who may die. I initially discuss these patients’ cognition, emotional tendencies, and sensitivity to interpersonal cues. I next discuss their parents’ feelings of loss and guilt and their clinicians’ risk of imposing their own moral views without knowing this. I then address the practical concerns of helping these patients gain or regain resilience and to identify strengths they have had in the past. I finally explore who, among staff, might be best able to do this. I highlight as the main goal that patients, their parents, and ideally also their clinicians are able to come to agree on the best course the patients should take.

How might clinicians best try to retain the trust of patients and family members after clinicians oppose giving a treatment? If clinicians can maintain the trust of patients and families in these situations, this may soften what may be the greatest possible loss—the death of a loved one.I discuss what clinicians seeking to retain trust should not do—namely impose their values and reason wrongly—and introduce strategies that clinicians may use to reduce both. I present five principles that clinicians can follow to try to retain trust, with examples that illustrate each. I suggest specific interventions that clinicians can make, especially when they anticipate that a patient and/or family may, in time, want a treatment that is futile.

One of the most important and difficult tasks in medicine is to determine when patients have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. This determination may determine a patient’s life or death. This article presents criteria and approaches now used to make this assessment and discusses how these approaches are presently applied in five common disorders that can serve as paradigms for approaches in other disorders. I propose that since there are new diagnoses and treatments, reconsidering our current practices is warranted. The possibilities that clinicians can nudge patients to make better choices for themselves and, above all, that clinicians can maintain and maximize positive patient/careprovider relationships during and after these assessments, are emphasized.