Search

Physicians generally recommend that patients resuscitated with naloxone after opioid overdose stay in the emergency department for a period of observation in order to prevent harm from delayed sequelae of opioid toxicity. Patients frequently refuse this period of observation despiteenefit to risk. Healthcare providers are thus confronted with the challenge of how best to protect the patient's interests while also respecting autonomy, including assessing whether the patient is making an autonomous choice to refuse care. Previous studies have shown that physicians have widely divergent approaches to navigating these conflicts. This paper reviews what is known about the effects of opioid use disorder on decision-making, and argues that some subset of these refusals are non-autonomous choices, even when patients appear to have decision making capacity. This conclusion has several implications for how physicians assess and respond to patients refusing medical recommendations after naloxone resuscitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eating disorders are mental illnesses that can have a significant and persistent physical impact, especially for those who are not treated early in their disease trajectory. Although many persons with eating disorders may make a full recovery, some may not; this is especially the case when it comes to persons with severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SEAN), namely, those who have had anorexia for between 6 and 12 years or more. Given that persons with SEAN are less likely to make a full recovery, a different treatment philosophy might be ethically warranted. One potential yet scarcely considered way to treat persons with SEAN is that of a harm reduction approach. A harm reduction philosophy is deemed widely defensible in certain contexts (e.g. in the substance use and addictions domain), and in this paper we argue that it may be similarly ethically defensible for treating persons with SEAN in some circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]