Magical thinking: Its effect on emergency medical care.

Magical thinking is a cognitive process characterized by beliefs in supernatural causality and the power of rituals. Grounded in personal convictions rather than objective reality, it involves subjective beliefs rather than magic tricks. Magical thinking's effects range from potentially positive, such as bringing hope and comfort, to negative consequences, including delays in seeking appropriate medical care and refusing evidence-based treatments. This article provides an overview of magical thinking, including its prevalence, diverse forms, and influence on patients, families, and emergency physicians (EPs). This article offers guidelines for recognizing signs of magical thinking and emphasizes the importance of respectful and empathetic interactions with patients and their families. Highlighting both the benefits and detriments of magical thinking in Emergency Medical (EM) care, the article discusses the knowledge and tools needed to optimize patient outcomes. It acknowledges the varying belief systems and cultural practices that contribute to the prevalence of magical thinking. For physicians and other EM professionals, addressing magical thinking requires cultural competence and empathetic engagement. Active listening and shared decision-making are essential to promote positive patient outcomes. By recognizing and understanding magical thinking and fostering effective communication, EPs can navigate the delicate balance of addressing patients' beliefs while delivering evidence-based care.

Applying Bioethics Across Cultures.

BACKGROUND: In our multicultural society, as well as when working internationally, emergency physicians (EPs) frequently see patients from cultures with communitarian or hierarchal structures. These groups may rely on traditional medical practices and view health care decisions through a lens other than patient autonomy. This leads to uncertainty about who can legitimately make decisions for patients and how to apply basic ethical principles. Because the commonly taught ethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and distributive justice) are loosely defined, they provide little help to EPs when working with cultures that de-emphasize Western individualism. CASE REPORT: The case illustrates this complexity by detailing how visiting EPs dealt with leaders from a communitarian culture who demanded that a preteen be treated for a femur fracture by a traditional bone healer rather than with modern techniques. DISCUSSION: The Western-trained clinicians struggled with their ethical responsibility to protect the child's welfare within the social setting: What should beneficence look like in this situation and to whom did it apply? More broadly, this paper examines the bases on which health care professionals might justify overruling parental decisions. It also asks whether the lack of clarity of the most used Western ethical principles suggests the need to broaden clinical ethics education to include issues from other cultures and settings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite principlism's shortcomings, the ease of teaching ethics to health care providers by grouping basic philosophical ideas suggests that we continue to use its structure. As educators and practitioners, we should, however, expand the concept of principlism to better address ethical values and issues found across different cultures.

Do You Believe in Magic? Shove, Don't Nudge: Advising Patients at the Bedside.

Magical thinking, distortions of reality based on fantasy, are pervasive in society and may influence patients' healthcare decisions. These distortions can "nudge" people to make decisions using System 1 thinking (a heuristic and error-prone decisional pathway that is always "on"), rather than a slower, deliberative, and more labor-intensive process that evaluates evidence (System 2). Physicians have been castigated for subtly nudging their patients toward evidence-based decisions. Yet when patients demonstrate magical thinking in their decision making, physicians have a professional responsibility to do more than nudge; they should shove patients toward decisions that will most likely achieve the healthcare goals they seek.

An hypnotic suggestion: review of hypnosis for clinical emergency care.

BACKGROUND: Hypnosis has been used in medicine for nearly 250 years. Yet, emergency clinicians rarely use it in emergency departments or prehospital settings. OBJECTIVE: This review describes hypnosis, its historical use in medicine, several neurophysiologic studies of the procedure, its uses and potential uses in emergency care, and a simple technique for inducing hypnosis. It also discusses reasons why the technique has not been widely adopted, and suggests methods of increasing its use in emergency care, including some potential research areas. DISCUSSION: A limited number of clinical studies and case reports suggest that hypnosis may be effective in a wide variety of conditions applicable to emergency medical care. These include providing analgesia for existing pain (e.g., fractures, burns, and lacerations), providing analgesia and sedation for painful procedures (e.g., needle sticks, laceration repair, and fracture and joint reductions), reducing acute anxiety, increasing children's cooperation for procedures, facilitating the diagnosis and treatment of acute psychiatric conditions, and providing analgesia and anxiolysis for obstetric/gynecologic problems. CONCLUSIONS: Although it is safe, fast, and cost-effective, emergency clinicians rarely use hypnosis. This is due, in part, to the myths surrounding hypnosis and its association with alternative-complementary medicine. Genuine barriers to its increased clinical use include a lack of assured effectiveness and a lack of training and training requirements. Based on the results of further research, hypnosis could become a powerful and safe nonpharmacologic addition to the emergency clinician's armamentarium, with the potential to enhance patient care in emergency medicine, prehospital care, and remote medical settings.