Jason Adam Wasserman

Nocebo effects occur when an adverse effect on the patient arises from the patient's own negative expectations. In accordance with informed consent, providers often disclose information that results in unintended adverse outcomes for the patient. While this may adhere to the principle of autonomy, it violates the doctrine of “primum non nocere,” given that side-effect disclosure may cause those side effects. In this article we build off previous work, particularly by Wells and Kaptchuk and by Cohen :3–11.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]), to suggest ethical guidelines that permit nondisclosure in the case when a nocebo effect is likely to occur on of the basis of nonmaleficence. We accept that that autonomy vis-à-vis informed consent must be forestalled, but salvage much of its role by elaborating a practical clinical approach to postencounter follow-up. In doing so, we reconcile a clinically practicable process of determining conditions of disclosure with long-standing ethical commitments to patients.

The birth of our daughter nearly 5 years ago went very well. But in a new city, with some experience on our side and access to a homelike natural birth center connected to a major area hospital, we thought it would be all the better when our son was born. We hadn’t dreamed that the detection of a benign arrhythmia in the baby’s heart would cascade into a situation that would not only undermine our entire birth plan, but force unwanted treatment and threats of abandonment. In this commentary, our intention is to illustrate the way in which narratives, and the commonalities between the stories shared by other authors in this issue and our own, can give profound depth and new insights into the things that happen to us.