Hastings Center Report最新文献

Well-trained, competent therapists are crucial for safe and effective psychedelic-assisted therapy (PAT). The question whether PAT training programs should require aspiring therapists to undergo their own PAT—commonly referred to as “experiential training”—has received much attention within the field. In this article, we analyze the potential benefits of experiential training in PAT by applying the framework developed by Rolf Sandell et al. concerning the functions of any training therapy (the therapeutic, modeling, empathic, persuasive, and theoretical functions). We then explore six key domains in which risks could arise through mandatory experiential training: physical and psychological risks; negative impact on therapeutic skill; justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion; dual relationships; privacy and confidentiality; and undue pressure. Ultimately, we argue that experiential training in PAT should not be mandatory. Because many PAT training programs already incorporate experiential training methods, our exploration of potential harms and benefits may be used to generate comprehensive risk-mitigation strategies.

On the cover: Clash of Interests, by Oliver Szax, 2021, acrylic on canvas, 27.6 × 35.4 inches.

Courtesy of the artist. oliverszax.com

In the article “Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience,” Abram L. Brummett, Tanner Hafen, and Mark C. Navin reject what they call the “referral asymmetry” in U.S. conscientious objection law in medicine, which recognizes rights of conscientiously objecting physicians to withhold referrals for medical interventions but does not (yet) recognize rights of physicians to make referrals for medical interventions to which they are morally committed but to which their health care institutions are morally opposed. This commentary concentrates on a second asymmetry, namely, the relationship of a health care provider's referral or nonreferral to the medical standard of care. The commentary argues that this second asymmetry seems to require action more appropriately recognized as civil disobedience than conscientious provision of referral.

Catholic health care is often viewed as antithetical to secular conceptions of autonomy. This view can engender calls to protect “choice” in Catholic facilities. However, this view is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs). This commentary, which responds to “Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience,” by Abram Brummett et al., seeks to demonstrate the nuance of the ERDs as well as to address some of the challenges various Catholic identities have when interpreting and living out the ERDs so that all patients receive high-quality, compassionate care. By highlighting the Church's desire to protect all people at every stage, I hope to dispel the caricatures that often result from misunderstandings by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

This letter responds to the article “Neither Ethical nor Prudent: Why Not to Choose Normothermic Regional Perfusion,” by Adam Omelianchuk et al., in the July-August 2024 issue of the Hastings Center Report.

New anti-obesity medications (AOMs) have received widespread acclaim in medical journals and the media, but they also raise critical ethical, public health, and public policy concerns that have largely been ignored. AOMs are very costly, need to be taken by a patient in perpetuity (since significant rebound weight gain otherwise occurs), and threaten to shift resources and focus away from other crucial efforts at obesity treatment and prevention. Many people may feel less motivated to exercise or reduce their caloric consumption, if they assume that obesity is now medically treatable. Policy-makers may similarly come to feel that the solution to the obesity pandemic is simply to prescribe medications and that prevention efforts are far less necessary. These drugs raise concerns about justice (since AOMs will disproportionately benefit the wealthy), medicalization, and marketing. Policy-makers, clinicians, and others need to engage in multipronged educational and policy efforts to address these challenges.

On the cover: Soul Searching, by Liz McDonald, 2021, acrylic on canvas, 20 × 20 inches.

Courtesy of the artist. lizmcdonaldstudio.com

For more than sixty years, surgeons have used bioethical strategies to promote patient self-determination, many of these now collectively described as “informed consent.” Yet the core framework—understanding, risks, benefits, and alternatives—fails to support patients in deliberation about treatment. We find that surgeons translate this framework into an overly complicated technical explanation of disease and treatment and an overly simplified narrative that surgery will “fix” the problem. They omit critical information about the goals and downsides of surgery and present untenable options as a matter of patient choice. We propose a novel framework called “better conversations.” Herein, surgeons provide context about clinical norms, establish the goals of surgery, and comprehensively delineate the downsides of surgery to generate a deliberative space for patients to consider whether surgery is right for them. This paradigm shift meets the standards for informed consent, supports deliberation, and allows patients to anticipate and prepare for the experience of treatment.