Search This Blog

Saturday, July 7, 2018

Palliative sedation, an end-of-life practice that is legal everywhere


Toward the end, the pain had practically driven Elizabeth Martin mad.
By then, the cancer had spread everywhere, from her colon to her spine, her liver, her adrenal glands and one of her lungs. Eventually, it penetrated her brain. No medication made the pain bearable. A woman who had been generous and good-humored turned into someone hardly recognizable to her loving family: paranoid, snarling, violent.
Sometimes, she would flee into the California night in her bedclothes, “as if she were trying to outrun the pain,” her older sister Anita Freeman recalled.
Ms. Martin fantasized about having her sister drive her into the mountains and leave her with the liquid morphine drops she had surreptitiously collected over three months — medicine that didn’t relieve her pain but might be enough to kill her if she took it all at once. Ms. Freeman couldn’t bring herself to do it, fearing the legal consequences and the possibility that her sister would survive and end up in even worse shape.
California’s aid-in-dying law, authorizing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to certain terminally ill patients, was still two years from going into effect in 2016. But Ms. Martin did have one alternative to the agonizing death she feared: palliative sedation.
Under palliative sedation, a doctor gives a terminally ill patient enough sedatives to induce unconsciousness. The goal is to reduce or eliminate suffering, but in many cases the patient dies without regaining consciousness.
The medical staff at the Long Beach acute care center where Ms. Martin was a patient gave her phenobarbital. Once they calibrated the dosage properly, she never woke up again. She died within a week, not the one or two months her doctors had predicted before the sedation. She was 66.
“At least she got into that coma state versus four to eight weeks of torture,” Ms. Freeman said.
While aid-in-dying, or “death with dignity,” is now legal in seven states and Washington, D.C., medically assisted suicide retains tough opposition. Palliative sedation, though, has been administered since the hospice care movement began in the 1960s and is legal everywhere.
Doctors in Catholic hospitals practice palliative sedation even though the Catholic Church opposes aid-in-dying. According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the church believes that “patients should be kept as free of pain as possible so that they may die comfortably and with dignity.”
Since there are no laws barring palliative sedation, the dilemma facing doctors who use it is moral rather than legal, said Timothy Quill, who teaches psychiatry, bioethics and palliative care medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York.
Some doctors are hesitant about using it “because it brings them right up to the edge of euthanasia,” Dr. Quill said.
But Dr. Quill believes that any doctor who treats terminally ill patients has an obligation to consider palliative sedation. “If you are going to practice palliative care, you have to practice some sedation because of the overwhelming physical suffering of some patients under your charge.”
Doctors wrestle with what constitutes unbearable suffering, and at what point palliative sedation is appropriate — if ever. Policies vary from one hospital to another, one hospice to another, and one palliative care practice to another.
The boundary between aid-in-dying and palliative sedation “is fuzzy, gray and conflated,” said David Grube, a national medical director at the advocacy group Compassion and Choices. In both cases, the goal is to relieve suffering.
But many doctors who use palliative sedation say the bright line that distinguishes palliative sedation from euthanasia, including aid-in-dying, is intent.
“There are people who believe they are the same. I am not one of them,” said Thomas Strouse, a psychiatrist and specialist in palliative care medicine at the UCLA Medical Center. “The goal of aid-in-dying is to be dead; that is the patient’s goal. The goal in palliative sedation is to manage intractable symptoms, maybe through reduction of consciousness or complete unconsciousness.”
Other groups such as the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, which advocates for quality end-of-life care, recommend that providers use as little medication as needed to achieve “the minimum level of consciousness reduction necessary” to make symptoms tolerable.
Sometimes that means a light unconsciousness, in which the patient may still be somewhat aware of the presence of others. On other occasions it might mean a deep unconsciousness, not unlike a coma. In some cases, the palliative sedation is limited; in others it continues until death.
Whether palliative sedation hastens death remains an open question. Pain-management doctors say sedation slows breathing and lowers blood pressure and heart rates to potentially dangerous levels.
In the vast majority of cases, it is accompanied by the cessation of food, drink and antibiotics, which can precipitate death. But palliative sedation is also administered when the underlying disease has made death imminent.
“Some patients are super sick,” Dr. Quill said. “The wheels are coming off, they’re delirious, out of their minds.”
In that circumstance, palliative sedation doesn’t accelerate death, he said. “For other patients who are not actively dying, it might hasten death to some extent, bringing it on in hours rather than days.” He emphasized, however, that in all cases the goal isn’t death but relief from suffering.
One review of studies on palliative sedation concluded that it “does not seem to have any detrimental effect on survival of patients with terminal cancer.” But even that 30-year survey acknowledged that, without randomized control trials, it’s impossible to be definitive.
There is widespread agreement that palliative sedation is appropriate for intractable physical pain, extreme nausea and vomiting when other treatments have failed.
Doctors are divided about whether palliative sedation is appropriate for alleviating suffering that is not physiological, what medical journals refer to as “existential suffering.” The hospice and palliative care group defines it as “suffering that arises from a loss or interruption of meaning, purpose, or hope in life.”
Some argue that such suffering is every bit as agonizing as physical suffering. Existential suffering is the motivation that prompts many to seek aid-in-dying.
Terminally ill patients who took their own lives under Oregon’s aid-in-dying law were far less likely to cite physical pain than psychosocial reasons such as loss of autonomy, loss of dignity or being a burden on loved ones.
Using palliative sedation to relieve existential suffering is less common in the United States than it is in other Western countries, according to UCLA’s Dr. Strouse and other American practitioners. “I am not comfortable with supplying palliative sedation for existential suffering,” Dr. Strouse said. “I’ve never done that and probably wouldn’t.”
In states where aid-in-dying is legal, terminally ill patients rarely choose between aid-in-dying and palliative sedation, said Anthony Back, co-director of the University of Washington’s Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence. In Washington, patients with a prognosis of six months to live or less must make two verbal requests to their doctor at least 15 days apart and sign a written form. They also must be healthy enough to take the legal drugs themselves.
“If you are starting the death-with-dignity process, you’re not at a point where a doctor would recommend palliative sedation,” Dr. Back said. “And with terminal sedation, the patient doesn’t have that kind of time and is too sick to take all those meds orally,” he said of the aid-in-dying drugs.
But Dr. Back does tell terminally ill patients who don’t want or don’t qualify for aid-in-dying that, when the time is right and no other treatments alleviate their symptoms, “I would be willing to make sure that you get enough sedation so you won’t be awake and miserable.”
Whether palliative sedation truly ends suffering is not knowable, although doctors perceive indications that it does.
“You might be able to tell if their blood pressure goes up. Same with their pulse,” said Nancy Crumpacker, a retired oncologist in Oregon. “And you read their faces. If they are still bothered somehow, it will show in their facial expression.”
Harlan Seymour didn’t need to rely on those signs after his wife, Jennifer Glass, a well-known San Francisco public relations executive, received palliative sedation in 2015. A nonsmoker, she had metastatic lung cancer and faced a miserable death from suffocation brought on by fluids filling her lungs, her husband said.
She desperately wanted to die, he said, but aid-in-dying, which she advocated for, wasn’t yet legal. Instead, she received palliative sedation.
“The expectation was this cocktail would put her into a peaceful sleep and she would pass away” within a day or two, Mr. Seymour said. “Instead, she woke up the third night in a panic.”
Doctors upped her dosage, putting her into a deep unconsciousness. Still, she didn’t die until the seventh day. She was 52. Mr. Seymour wishes aid-in-dying had been available for his wife, but he did regard palliative sedation as a mercy for her.
“Palliative sedation is slow-motion aid-in-dying,” he said. “It was better than being awake and suffocating, but it wasn’t a good alternative.”

NSAIDs in Early Pregnancy Up Miscarriage Risk


study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology analyzed pregnant women from the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system and compared newly pregnant women who took non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or acetaminophen or neither and found that using NSAIDs around conception carried a more than fourfold higher risk of early miscarriage.
While it is known that NSAIDs should be avoided after week 32 (to prevent premature closure of the ductus arteriosus), there are mixed messages regarding the use of NSAIDs during conception or early pregnancy.
The researchers enrolled 1,097 pregnant women, all of whom were very early in pregnancy (median gestational age at enrollment was 39 days) to best ascertain fetal outcomes (including miscarriage). Among the eligible women contacted, 63% agreed to participate in the study.
NSAID use during pregnancy was associated with a significantly (59%) increased risk of miscarriage compared with unexposed controls (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.59) or a 45% increased risk in those exposed to acetaminophens (adjusted HR 1.45). Nearly one-quarter of the women who took NSAIDs had miscarriages within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, compared with 16% of those who took acetaminophen and 17% of women who took neither medication.
Most of the risk was evident for NSAID use around conception (adjusted HR 1.89), with a statistically significant dose-response relationship (adjusted HR 1.37) for NSAID use of 14 days or less (adjusted HR 1.85) for NSAID use of 15 days or more.
The association was stronger for early miscarriage at less than 8 weeks gestational age (adjusted HR 4.08, 95% CI 2.25-7.41). Women with a lower body-mass index (BMI) — i.e., <25 — appeared to be more susceptible to the effect of NSAID use around conception (adjusted HR 3.78) than women with high BMI (≥25) (adjusted HR 1.03).
NSAIDs are also among the most commonly used drugs by pregnant women, and the risk may be greater with longer NSAID use, since women who used NSAIDs for at least 2 weeks or more had more miscarriages than those who took them for less time.
NSAID use around conception was associated with an increased risk of miscarriage, with a dose-response relationship, especially in women with a lower BMI.
Jack Cush, MD, is the director of clinical rheumatology at the Baylor Research Institute and a professor of medicine and rheumatology at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. He is the executive editor of RheumNow.com. A version of this article first appeared on RheumNow, a news, information and commentary site dedicated to the field of rheumatology. Register to receive their free rheumatology newsletter.

Hybio Pharma, Chinese consortium to acquire German pharma firm AMW


Germany-based drug delivery systems developer AMW has signed an agreement to be acquired by a consortium led by private equity firm Yunfeng (YF) Capital and Chinese drug developer Hybio Pharmaceutical.
The deal covers AMWs specialist pharmaceutical company located in Warngau, as well as its subsidiary Endomedica in Halle.
Founded in 2008, AMW develops, manufactures and sells advanced pharmaceutical formulations, including transdermal drug delivery systems and subcutaneous biodegradable sustained-release implants. Its products have indications in the fields of oncology, neurology, dermatology, diabetes and pain treatment.
Its portfolio includes Buprenorphine and Rivastigmin patches, along with Goserelin and Leuprorelin implants. The firm additionally has a pipeline of new products for various applications.
After the completion of the transaction, the Chinese consortium plans to support further growth of the company, invest in the development of new products and accelerate its internationalisation efforts.
Commenting on the deal, AMW managing director Wilfried Fischer said: The commitment of the new owner to the existing product pipeline as well as the willingness to make use of the technology to start new development projects perfectly matches AMWs long-term strategy.
Hybio Pharmaceutical is a biopharmaceutical company involved in research, development, production and commercialisation of peptides and peptide-based drugs.
The acquisition forms part of the new owners international expansion strategy through addition of products and a research and development (R&D) pipeline.
YF Capital vice-president Albert Huang said: Both Hybio and YF Capital intend to maintain and accelerate the growth of the companys current structure including the transdermal and parenteral products, business sites in Warngau and Halle, as well as the skilled employees and management team.
With the capacity of a financially strong strategic partners, we do believe that AMW can proceed to the next level in the pharma business, also we strongly believe the collaboration between AMW and Hybio will be highly beneficial for both parties, addressing global market growth opportunities.
The new owners intend to leverage AMWs global sales force, primarily in the US and China markets.

NMC HEALTH : UAE’s health care can still take in more hospital beds


The UAE’s health care sector could still do with a few more hospital beds.
“Currently, the UAE [still] has the lowest hospital bed density (number of hospital beds per 1,000 residents) available in the GCC,” said Prasanth Manghat, CEO and Executive Director at NMC Health plc. “UAE’s vision to rank among the world’s Top 20 health care markets presents a renewed focus on health care, while mandatory health insurance would bring in more capacities and create the bedrock for an emerging medical tourism market.”
As of now, Abu Dhabi and Dubai have in place compulsory medical cover for all residents, while the Northern Emirates could be headed in the same direction. Some insurance industry sources say the first steps could be taken even as early as later this year.
“The utility of insurance has been realised — in Abu Dhabi it has matured to a larger extent as against elsewhere in the UAE,” said Manghat. “It has gone through evolutionary phases of free-for-all to allegations of over-diagnosis to co-payment.
“Excluding Abu Dhabi and Dubai, it still has to kick off. With the vivid dynamics of the migrant population, the concept of medical insurance and its contribution to the sector would always remain thematic.”
Whatever be the status for compulsory medical insurance for all in the Northern Emirates, the UAE overall could see the number of hospital beds rise to 14,000 by end 2020. That would come about from a 3 per cent annual growth over the next two years. For comparison’s sake, the number of hospital beds in 2010 was estimated at just under 8,000.
“UAE is among the top 20 countries for health spending per capita and the country accounts for 26 per cent of the total health care spending by GCC governments,” said Manghat. “All the money would translate into creating [new] capacities and capabilities.”
Some in the industry reckon that much of the required capacities are already in place to serve the needs of the resident base for the next three to five years. That after putting in significant investments in the first seven years of this decade, health care operators should pause for breath. That instead of focusing on just adding new beds, the emphasis of upcoming investments should be on specialised care rather than create more capacity in the primary health care space.
Ageing population
Manghat, however, argues that such broad assumptions cannot be made, and that it could vary with the emirate, “The growth would come from ‘specialised’ capability creation in Abu Dhabi [and] capacity creation in Dubai and especially the Northern Emirates,” the CEO added. “Other factors would be the ageing population and an increase in chronic diseases coupled with lifestyle diseases.”
For leading health care operators in the UAE, it means keeping one eye on growth chances and the other on an ever increasing cost of investment and operations. Industry feedback suggests that raising debt finance has also tightened up considerably in recent quarters.
According to Manghat, “The cost could be broken down in two parts — first is attributed to the money while the other is attributed to time. Not taking into account the real estate costs — as it could be vary based on location, etc — the cost of creating new capacities depends upon the type of facility is being created as in secondary-, tertiary- or quaternary care.
“A mid- to high-level tertiary care facility could cost anything between Dh1.5 million to Dh3 million per bed. The costs would always go up as medical technology is improving and the manpower is coming as more and more specialised and trained. These costs are almost similar all across the region.
“On the cost in terms of time, the regulatory approvals have always been forthcoming as the fastest in the UAE as compared to elsewhere in the region.”

‘Smart’ antibiotic may swat commonest bacteria infection in US hospitals


The most common health care-associated bacterial infection in hospitals in the United States is Clostridium difficile. This pathogen secretes toxins that trigger diarrhea and colitis in 500,000 patients annuallykilling approximately 29,000 people each year, and all at an annual cost to the U.S. health care system of approximately $6 billion. Ironically, exposure to antibiotics dramatically increases the risk of developing a C. difficile infection (CDI).
There are several reasons for this paradox. The current antibiotics used in clinical practice kill many  in the gut as well as the pathogenic target organism. This loss of good microbes causes an unhealthy shift in the bacterial population in the gut that is referred to as dysbiosis. After the beneficial bacteria are wiped out, C. difficile occupies the void left behind.
Treating CDI with  may in some cases make the situation worse. In a sense, the antibiotics we currently use to treat CDI patients are the same drugs that initially created the ideal conditions in the gut for this pathogenic microbe to flourish and cause infection. This helps explain why these infections persist and recur in between 15 and 30 percent of patients after their first antibiotic regimen.
Our team is focused on addressing these clinical treatment gaps for CDI by developing a new kind of antibiotic that does not disturb the beneficial microbes of the gut the way that conventional antibiotics do. To do this, our team is developing drugs that are inexpensive to produce and which are easily modifiable, so that the work we do on C. difficile can be potentially applied to other bacteria.
Our team is developing new targeted antibiotics that only kill C. difficile. We previously published the first paper on using specially designed slivers of DNA to fight CDI. Our most recent publication provides further proof of concept that these pieces of DNA are able to silence genes that are vital for this microbe to survive.
A new weapon
Much of the monetary cost of CDI is driven by the persistent infections and high recurrence rates, which require multiple rounds of antibiotics and longer hospital stays. C. difficile is unique among the bacterial infections affecting humans because it thrives when the gut is in disarray after antibiotic treatment.
Recently, fecal microbiota transplantations (FMT) – microbes collected from the feces of people with healthy guts – have been shown to be be an effective therapy for recurrent CDI. However, safety and efficacy for its use among inpatients with life-threatening CDI, issues regarding reimbursement from insurance companies, and social awkwardness surrounding the medicinal use of human stool currently limit FMT.
We have developed a completely new type of drug that uses small pieces of DNA to disable critical genes in this microbe. Our work has demonstrated that our custom DNA pieces – which we call antisense oligonuceotides (ASOs) – can potentially treat CDI and avoid the pitfalls of traditional therapies. Our DNA drug targets C. difficile based upon unique elements of its genome. Using genetic targets helps to ensure that we only kill one type of bacteria.
Delivering the drug
To design these new antisense DNA drugs we first had to sequence the genome of C. difficile – the entire complement of DNA that encodes the instructions for this bacterium. We then compared its genetic blueprint with that of other microbes and designed ASOs that only match the messages – messenger RNA – generated by important C. difficile genes.
But designing these new ASOs isn’t the only challenge; we still need to get them inside C. difficile. To do that, we also designed special molecules (nanocarriers) which deliver our ASOs into C. difficile without harming the cells lining the colon and without disturbing the community of bacteria that make up the gut microbiome. These transporters essentially taxi our ASOs to their destination, which is why we gave them the acronym CABS for cationic amphiphilic bola-amphiphiles.
In our most recent publication, we show that one of our CABS could deliver a dose of ASO to block the growth of C. difficile in culture in the lab. We also demonstrated that our new drug performed comparably to the most frequently used conventional antibiotics. And, when used at doses effective against C. difficile, our drugs left other frequently encountered bacteria largely undisturbed in culture.
Curbing antimicrobial resistance
Since ASOs are extremely inexpensive, creating a new microbe-specific ASO is a relatively simple drug modification – and an approach that may help stem the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance. Another benefit of our approach is that we can use ASO to target more than one genetic target, which reduces the chance of drug resistance. Our approach also enables us to target bacterial functions that conventional antibiotics could never reach.
For example, C. difficile is able to form spores, making it tougher to kill, and allowing it to survive on surfaces in hospital rooms. Targeting the spore forming genes with our new drugs could disrupt this process, making the organism easier to destroy. C. difficile also produces toxins responsible for the symptoms of colitis (diarrhea, pain, sepsis). Targeting the genes that are responsible for these toxins can reduce the severity of the symptoms and prevent life-threatening forms of this infection.
While our ASOs are designed to be specific to C. difficile, our nanocarriers are not and can be mass-produced to carry ASOs targeting any bacteria. The low cost and wide adaptability of our drug and carrier technology means it could be an especially valuable tool for improving care in impoverished countries where large numbers of people continue to die from diarrheal illnesses from a range of different bacteria.
One unique feature of CDI is that since it affects the colon, these drugs can be delivered via enema directly into the affected organ. This bypasses the rest of the gut, and it may improve efficacy while allowing for a lower  dose.
Challenges and next steps
We are well aware that we have many steps to go before we can deliver this medicine to humans. One of our first challenges is designing new nanocarriers that can carry larger doses of ASO while having minimal to no effect on the colon or colonic bacteria.
Another challenge is that bacteria often have redundant genes – so targeting the activity of just a single gene may not be enough to kill the microbe or block disease.
If we can successfully develop these drugs, not only would it provide a new treatment for a common infection, but just as importantly, it would introduce an inexpensive and adaptable strategy for developing similar antisense  for other .

Why Companies Should Hire Anxious Employees


I rarely talk about my clinical anxiety at my job in advertising sales at Google, but when I do, I always add the quick caveat that “It doesn’t affect my work.” I attempt to breezily explain that my anxiety is around relationships and social activities, not work, for fear that my co-workers will think I’m not able to handle workloads or stressful assignments the same way they can.
I’m not alone. According to the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, only one-fourth of those with an anxiety disorder have told their employers about their diagnosis. Thirty-eight percent of those who hadn’t worried that “their boss would interpret it as lack of interest or unwillingness to do the activity” while 34 percent of them worried it would affect their promotion opportunities.
But recently, I’ve come to realize my anxiety isn’t holding me back at work but actually making me a better employee.
According to Nanci Pradas, who has 30 years of experience as a therapist, “There’s evidence to show that people who overcome thought distortions and automatic thoughts (symptoms of anxiety) can think more quickly, get promotions more frequently, and be more assertive.” And explaining how just might help break down the stigma about anxious workers.
My journey with anxiety probably started in college but hit a breaking point soon after, when I started a new job and broke up with my long-term boyfriend. I started seeing a therapist who specializes in cognitive behavioral therapy, or CBT, a form of psychological treatment that focuses on addressing mental health problems through active behavior change. My anxiety was exhausting, all-encompassing, and painful to work through. But the truth is after four years of therapy and targeted medication, I have learned valuable lessons that I wouldn’t have if I didn’t have anxiety.
I often describe my anxiety as going down a big mind spiral, where unfounded thoughts lead to even more unlikely imagined scenarios, such as “My boyfriend and I got in a fight. Now he’s definitely going to break up with me, and I’ll be alone forever. I better start researching egg freezing,” which start to feel not just possible but inevitable.
This also happens in the workplace: I’ve seen people translate one odd look in a meeting to the assumption that a client is going to pull all of its spend. This creates unnecessary stress and work when it most often isn’t even needed, work often described by the workplace lingo of “spinning your wheels.”
The tool I’ve learned for coping with these harmful thoughts is asking myself, “What is the evidence right now?” This often helps me find good reasons to assuage my fears. In my nonwork life, that might be noting to myself that my boyfriend has already texted me with plans for the night—something he probably wouldn’t do if we were breaking up. I use this same tool constantly in my job, asking myself and teammates if there is actual evidence pointing to a problem, and saving us hours of unproductivity. Was that weird look in the meeting sandwiched between otherwise positive indicators about the client’s level of satisfaction with our work?
A key determinant of career success is the ability to take feedback calmly and use it to change or improve your behavior, but many employees struggle with this. It’s easy to leave a year-end review with a lump in your throat and a feeling that any critiques you heard from your boss mean you should start looking for a new job or hold a silent grudge. But through CBT for my anxiety, I’ve learned how to reflect on both my strengths and weaknesses and then to change patterns of unhelpful behavior.
So when I received the constructive feedback from my boss that I sometimes interrupt and correct co-presenters in customer-facing meetings, I took time to reflect on why I was doing this. It was coming from a fear my manager thought my new teammates were more knowledgeable than I am. Once I challenged that fear by noting that there was virtually no evidence this was true, and started pausing before each meeting to remind myself I had nothing to prove, my manager noticed a difference right away.
Dealing with anxiety has also increased my empathy for colleagues. I know I’m not perfect—I have a real mental health issue—so I don’t expect others to be either. I am more likely to give the benefit of the doubt and understand that when others exhibit what seems like irrational behavior, they might just be experiencing anxieties of their own.
While I’ve worked to reduce my anxiety, maintaining some is actually critical in achieving my goals. According to Colleen Cira, founder of Cira Center for Behavioral Health in Chicago, “flow theory” explains that people need a certain amount of physiological arousal (anxiety, engagement, stimulation) in order to be productive. But she warns that too much anxiety can make people overwhelmed. The key is finding balance, she says. “A person with well-managed anxiety is likely going to be a more productive employee as a result of their tendency to be anxious.”
A 2018 study about anxiety in the workplace echoes this, according to authors Julie McCarthy and Bonnie Hayden Cheng of the University of Toronto. “After all, if we have no anxiety and we just don’t care about performance, then we are not going to be motivated to do the job,” said Cheng.
The most valuable thing I’ve gained from coping with anxiety is a strong belief that change is possible, and that keeps me motivated. The process of working on myself didn’t happen overnight or in a linear fashion, which has helped me not get discouraged at the change of pace at large and complex organizations. But for anxious workers to thrive at work, we have to take on the stigma around mental illness at work. It’s time to see anxious employees as assets, not as liabilities. An employee who is productive, has empathy, challenges long-standing beliefs, and is persistent? Who wouldn’t want to hire someone like that.

There’s only one way to truly understand another person’s mind: Just ask


It’s often said that we should put ourselves in another person’s shoes in order to better understand their point of view. But psychological research suggests this directive leaves something to be desired: When we imagine the inner lives of others, we don’t necessarily gain real insight into other people’s minds.
Instead of imagining ourselves in another person’s position, we need to actually get their perspective, according to a recent study (pdf) in the Journal of Personality and Psychology. Researchers from the University of Chicago and Northeastern University in the US and Ben Gurion University in Israel conducted 25 different experiments with strangers, friends, couples, and spouses to assess the accuracy of insights onto other’s thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and mental states.
Their conclusion, as psychologist Tal Eyal tells Quartz: “We assume that another person thinks or feels about things as we do, when in fact they often do not. So we often use our own perspective to understand other people, but our perspective is often very different from the other person’s perspective.” This “egocentric bias” leads to inaccurate predictions about other people’s feelings and preferences. When we imagine how a friend feels after getting fired, or how they’ll react to an off-color joke or political position, we’re really just thinking of how we would feel in their situation, according to the study.
In 15 computer-based experiments, each with a minimum of 30 participants, the psychologists asked subjects to guess people’s emotions based on an image, their posture, or a facial expression, for example. Some subjects were instructed to “consult their own feelings,” while others were given no instructions, and some were told to “think hard” or mimic the expressions to better understand. People told to rely on their own feelings as a guide most often provided inaccurate responses. They were unable to guess the correct emotion being displayed.
The second set of experiments asked subjects to make predictions about the feelings of strangers, friends, and partners. (Strangers interacted briefly to get to know one another before hazarding guesses about the preferences of they had just person they met.) The researchers wanted to see if people who had some meaningful information about each other—like spouses—could make accurate judgments about the other’s reactions to jokes, opinions, videos, and more. It turned out that neither spouses nor strangers nor friends tended to make accurate judgments when “taking another’s perspective.”
 Imagining another person’s perspective doesn’t actually improve our ability to judge how another person thinks or feels. “Our experiments found no evidence that the cognitive effort of imagining oneself in another person’s shoes, studied so widely in the psychological literature, increases a person’s ability to accurately understand another’s mind,” the researchers write. “If anything, perspective taking decreased accuracy overall while occasionally increasing confidence in judgment.” Basically, imagining another person’s perspective may give us the impression that we’re making more accurate judgments. But it doesn’t actually improve our ability to judge how another person thinks or feels.
There were no gender differences in the results. Across the board, men and women tended not to guess another’s perspective very accurately when putting themselves in the other’s position. But this did increase self-confidence in the accuracy of their predictions—even when their insights were off.
The good news, however, is that researchers found a simple, concrete way we can all confidently and correctly improve the accuracy of our insights into others’ lives. When people are given a chance to talk to the other person about their opinions before making predictions about them—Eyal calls this “perspective getting” as opposed to perspective taking—they are much more accurate in predicting how others might feel than those instructed to take another’s perspective or given no instructions.
In the final test, researchers asked subjects both to try putting themselves in another’s shoes, on the one hand, and to talk directly with test partners about their positions on a given topic. The final experiment confirmed that getting another person’s perspective directly, through conversation, increased the accuracy of subjects’ predictions, while simply “taking” another’s perspective did not. This was true for partners, friends, and strangers alike.
“Increasing interpersonal accuracy seems to require gaining new information rather than utilizing existing knowledge about another person,” the study concludes. “Understanding the mind of another person,” as the researchers put it, is only possible when we actually probe them about what they think, rather than assuming we already know.
The psychologists believe their study has applications in legal mediation, diplomacy, psychology, and our everyday lives. Whether we’re negotiating at a conference table, fighting with a spouse, or debating the political motivations of voters, we simply can’t rely on intuition for insight, according to Eyal. Only listening will do the trick.
“Perspective getting allows gaining new information rather than utilizing existing, sometimes biased, information about another person,” Eyal explains to Quartz. “In order to understand what your spouse prefers—don’t try to guess, ask.”