Capacity Consultation and Contextual Complexities: Depression, Decisions, and Deliberation

Non-Psychiatric Treatment Refusal in Patients with Depression: How Should Surrogate Decision-Makers Represent the Patient's Authentic Wishes?

Patients with mental illness, and depression in particular, present clinicians and surrogate decision-makers with complex ethical dilemmas when they refuse life-sustaining non-psychiatric treatment. When treatment rejection is at variance with the beliefs and preferences that could be expected based on their premorbid or "authentic" self, their capacity to make these decisions may be called into question. If capacity cannot be demonstrated, medical decisions fall to surrogates who are usually advised to decide based on a substituted judgment standard or, when that is not possible, best interest. We propose that in cases where the patient meets the widely accepted cognitive criteria for capacity but is making decisions that appear inauthentic, the surrogate may best uphold patient autonomy by following a "restorative representation" model. We see restorative representation as a subset of substituted judgement in which the decision-maker retains responsibility for deciding as the patient would have, but discerns the decision their "truest self" would make, rather than inferring their current wishes, which are directly influenced by illness. Here we present a case in which the patient's treatment refusal and previously undiagnosed depression led to difficulty determining the patient's authentic wishes and placed a distressing burden on the surrogate decision-maker. We use this case to examine how clinicians and ethicists might better advise surrogates who find themselves making these clinically and emotionally challenging decisions.

Meeting Its Mission: Does Psychosomatics Align With the Mission of Its Parent Organization, the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine?

BACKGROUND

The vision and mission statements of the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine (APM) indicate that the APM should promote excellence in clinical care for patients with comorbid psychiatric and general medical conditions by seeking to influence research, public policy, and interdisciplinary education.

OBJECTIVE

As the APM owns the journal, Psychosomatics, we sought to assess whether the APM's journal was fulfilling the vision and mission of its parent organization by reviewing the content of articles published in the journal to determine whether it sufficiently addresses the various clinical care knowledge areas it seeks to influence.

METHODS

We categorized content in all review articles, case reports, and original research articles published in Psychosomatics in 2015 and 2016. Each article was assigned to as many categories that it covered.

RESULTS

In the 163 articles reviewed, the most frequently covered fund of knowledge area was psychiatric morbidity in medical populations (44.2%); among psychiatric disorders, mood disorders (22.1%), psychiatric disorders due to a general medical condition or toxic substance (21.5%), anxiety disorders (14.7%), and delirium (13.5) were the most frequently covered. Of the medical and surgical topics, neurology (19.6%), coping with chronic illness/psychological response to illness (17.8%), toxicology (11.7%), outpatient medicine (10.4%), and cardiology (9.8%) appeared most often.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychosomatics appears to be successfully providing content relevant to the APM's vision and mission statements and to practitioners of psychosomatic medicine.