Tod Machover on ForaTV
Hauser on Morality
Harvey Chochinov’s Interview with Geraldine Doogue
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/saturdayextra/stories/2009/2728604.htm
Geraldine Doogue: Now a change of pace from childhood memories of Anne Manne, to the other inevitable end-of-life spectrum: illness and death and the quite rapid strides being taken by the relatively new discipline of palliative care, and the challenges it’s throwing out to broader accepted medical practice.
Over the years there’s been quite a lot of lay writing about how people feel and react when death is near, but my next guest has been gathering notice internationally for his systematic reflection on the role of medical professionals at the core of this time of people’s lives.
Professor Harvey Chochinov holds many posts, chief among them, professor of psychiatry and community health sciences at the University of Manitoba, and director of the Manitoba Palliative Care Research Unit at Cancer Care Manitoba, and he’s known as the founder of the relatively new intervention, Dignity Therapy. He’s speaking today at the Inaugural Whole Person Care National Symposium in Sydney, and it’s my pleasure to welcome him. Professor Chochinov, welcome to Saturday Extra.
Harvey Chochinov: Glad to be here.
Geraldine Doogue: Now in one of your papers, Professor Chochinov, you quote the late Anatole Broyard, the former editor of The New York Times Book Review, and it’s a great quote: ‘To the typical physician, my illness, metastatic prostate cancer, is a routine incident in his rounds, while for me it’s the crisis of my life. I’d feel better if I had a doctor who at least perceived this incongruity. I just wish he would.’ A very heartfelt appeal, I would have thought, but a common one?
Harvey Chochinov: Absolutely. Broyard, by the way was a wonderful writer; the remainder of that quote I believe he says something to the effect ‘I want a physician who will not only grope for my prostate but for my soul.’ Patients want to look towards healthcare providers, and know that we are seeing something more than the lump or more than the aberrant blood test, that somehow we are seeing them.
We’ve done some research on the issue of dignity, and in fact found that the thing that’s most predictive of whether someone’s dignity is intact or not, really depends on how they perceive others to experience them, which is extraordinary when you think about it. And very much implicates the position of the healthcare provider. In fact I was so taken by the data that I wrote an article called ‘Dignity in the Eye of the Beholder’, and we the health care providers, behold patient and patient experience; and the message of the paper is that the reflection that patients see of themselves in the eye of the beholder needs to be one that’s affirming of their sense of dignity.
Geraldine Doogue: Look, it just prompts so many thoughts, because maybe the orthodox expectation — and I have to say maybe I would have thought this myself — is that above all what you want when you are terribly ill, is the competence, the practical competence of the specialist, or the doctor that you’re dealing with. You’re really challenging that notion, you’re saying that it’s not one or t’other, it’s not pragmatic competence versus a sense of compassion, the two absolutely can go in the one form.
Harvey Chochinov: Patients absolutely do want competence but isn’t it interesting that we’ve parsed out competence to be exclusive of the humanities of care. So we can say we can have somebody who was profoundly technically competent, but they have absolutely no people skills. And the truth is, there have been studies that have been done looking at why is it that patients receive complaints at the level of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, and in 80% of instances the reason that physicians get into trouble is not because of competence issues, it’s because of tone issues, and tone of care. It is because of lack of communication abilities. So we know that of course patients want competence, they want the best of care, but the best of care should include the humanities of care.
Geraldine Doogue: In a way, it just sounds like very good bedside manner. You might say well of course.
Harvey Chochinov: What we say to health care providers oftentimes to simplify this, is you know, just be a good person, you know. I don’t know if it translates well in Australian parlance but in Canadian terms, trust your gut. We know, and what the data shows is that physicians get into trouble. So I don’t think it’s that anybody has bad intention necessarily, I think the reality is that we tend to think of this as somehow being outside of the realm of delivering healthcare. This is something we can refer to the social worker, to the pastoral care provider, somebody will look after the ‘niceties of care’, while I will do medicine. Well, pardon me, but medicine should include those core values of medical professionalism, like kindness and respect.
Geraldine Doogue: And compassion, which you put a lot of emphasis on. Can compassion be learned? Let’s say we have a specialist who’s a very good diagnostician, which I would actually like if I’m very ill. But they just don’t think of these things as important. Can they learn it?
Harvey Chochinov: I think the difficulty with compassion and trying to teach it, when I look at various different programs around the world that have attempted to do this, is they’re — I’ll just use an analogy — a bit like a shoe store that only sells size 9. You know, it fits some people, but not everyone. I think to make care providers more compassionate, you need to have them find what puts them in touch with their own sense of vulnerability, mortality, and for some people, I was at a…
Geraldine Doogue: Might that not, dare I say, might that not undermine their sense of competence? Isn’t it possible that that’s the very thing you would least want in someone who’s going to have to go through lots and lots of decision-making in a day?
Harvey Chochinov: Physicians need to make decisions, and they need to be able to compartmentalise. The truth is that when your surgeon is about to make the first incision, what you want him thinking about the appropriate anatomical landmarks; not the fact that this is a young mother with two children and single, and so on and so forth. But unless he or she is planning on only dealing with anaesthetised patients, patients deserve to have somebody who can at least acknowledge that there is something more to them, than their illness. I was saying that I was at Harvard in Boston a couple of years ago and basically explained to the students that the data, and there is good data to support this, that the data metaphorically says that you are a mirror. Patients and families, every time they have contact with you, they’re looking at that reflection and if they see only their illness, then they feel that they have vanished, they feel they’ve disappeared.
Geraldine Doogue: My guest is Professor Harvey Chochinov, founder of a new end-of-life intervention called Dignity Therapy, which is maybe what we should get to now, Professor Chochinov. Is it a very practical, intense type of intervention? I haven’t heard this phrase before.
Harvey Chochinov: One of the pieces that we came upon during the course of our studies, is that for some patients, besides all of the other anxieties that might undermine sense of dignity, is a sense that nothing of their essence or of their personhood would survive beyond the moment of death, that they will die in the memories of those they loved and life will not have left any ripple effect. In developmental psychology, we refer to this as generativity.
So what we’ve done is we’ve created a therapeutic intervention, if you will, in which they’re invited to discuss things that matter to them, parts of their life perhaps that they would want remembered or known, things they’ve learned along the way, accomplishments, things they feel proud of, hopes, wishes or dreams for individuals, or loved ones, specific advice — these interviews are guided by a skilled therapist, they are edited so that we can turn what is sometimes a meandering dialogue into a more pristine narrative, and then given as a document to the patient, for them to most often bequeath to a family member or loved one.
It all sounds lovely, and perhaps to some extent intuitive, but we live in an era of evidence-based medicine, and we believe that if we’re going to change the field of medicine, or to change the field of palliative medicine, we have to generate good evidence. And so we’ve just finished — we’ve done a couple of studies on dignity therapy, and in fact one of our collaborators, Dr Linda Christiansen in Perth, Australia, has been a long-time research colleague. Together with the group in Perth and in Canada, we did a study on dignity therapy and we showed that 95% of patients were not only satisfied but nearly 80% said it enhanced their sense of dignity, 70% to 75% said this gave them a sense of meaning and purpose, a portion said that it helped them to prepare for death and just over 80% said they believed that it already had, or would help their family member.
Geraldine Doogue: Did it — I think you report an increased will to live on behalf of nearly half the people whom you worked with — what about a more peaceful acceptance for letting go, for dying, is that something that you seek? Is it a by-product?
Harvey Chochinov: I think the thing about nearing end of life is that people cope with it in a variety of ways. Some patients seem to hang on to this construct, will to live for a very long time, which to me is not so much a palliative care finding as it is a finding about the human condition, the wish to be here seems to be something that sustains us and seems to be sustained for a very long time. I don’t think it’s something that we have to try and change or tamper with, it is what it is.
On the other hand, sometimes, for some patients, offering something that engenders a sense of meaning and purpose, can have an influence on outlook and the wish to go on. A story I often tell is of a gentleman who we enrolled in dignity therapy who actually told me that if he could push the button, if he could end his life now, that he would. He decided that breathing could become redundant, there was no point in going on. And so I explained what dignity therapy was about and asked if he would be interested, and he was actually quite taken with the idea, he was a lovely gentlemen, he was taken with the idea and ‘Yes, I would very much like this’, and I arranged to come back the next day. And as I exited his room, I said to him, ‘By the way, if you could press the button right now, would you?’ And he looked at me with this sheepish smile and said, ‘No, we have to do this first.’
Geraldine Doogue: Very interesting. Look finally, just to go back to another quote, Francis Peabody, seeing we started with Broyard — this is him writing in 1927: ‘One of the essential qualities of the clinician is interest in humanity for the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.’ And I notice that you actually suggest that doctors take on life, literature, films, anthropology, that they throw themselves into the fullest experience of life, not merely the acquisition of the most orthodox medical skills. Why does that matter?
Harvey Chochinov: What I suggest is that people be true to themselves and that what they do should be done with some specificity so that it resonates as personally meaningful. When I was visiting Harvard Medical School the medical students told me that everyone had to keep a diary, reflecting on their experience. And so I asked the medical students, and there were no supervisors around, I said, ‘So, does this work?’ And half of them said it was gorgeous, that it helped them tremendously. And the other half confessed that they were glad that they had spouses or partners who enjoyed creative writing.
So my point is we need to encourage doctors to do things that put them in touch with the experience of living so that they understand that they’re not so different from their patients, and that I think, is what engenders compassion. The truth is, at the end of the day, I mean we all need good care and we’re all deserving of good care, and be mindful of the psychological, the social, the spiritual, the existential realms a patient experienced, I think is the only way that we’re going to be able to deliver holistic, or what I’ve called dignity conserving care.
Geraldine Doogue: Professor Chochinov, good luck to you, all power to you. Thank you very much for joining us.
Harvey Chochinov: It’s been my pleasure.
Geraldine Doogue: Harvey Chochinov is professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Manitoba, and there’s a link to the Whole Person Care National Symposium on our website where he’s been visiting Australia in order to speak at it. And again, I’d love to hear back from you; I think it might prompt a lot of reflection from listeners.
Nutrition and health: Food, glorious food | The Economist
Nutrition and health
Food, glorious food
Oct 29th 2009
From The Economist print editionThe way health claims about food are regulated is changing
Getty ImagesBARELY a day seems to pass without a new study reporting the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids. A high intake of omega-3s has been linked with reduced rates of depression, cardiovascular disease and homicide. In pregnant women the consumption of these wonder molecules has even been associated with an uplift of the IQ of their offspring. The food industry has responded to this bonanza of evidence by putting omega-3s into everything from baby milk to drinks to margarine in the hope of increasing sales while bringing health benefits to fat and sickly customers.
Behind the silver lining, though, looms a black cloud: not all omega-3s are created equal. The good ones (long-chain fatty acids) come from expensive sources such as fish. The far less beneficial ones (short-chain fatty acids) come from cheap plant oils like flax seed and soya, as well as from leafy green vegetables. No prizes for guessing which type of omega-3s some less-scrupulous manufacturers have chosen to put in their products in order to imply health benefits.
The problem of dubious nutrition and health claims for foodstuffs is now being addressed on both sides of the Atlantic. America’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said on October 20th that it would overhaul the regulation of such claims on food labels and issue new standards early next year. In the European Union, meanwhile, a legislative process that began in 2006 is grinding towards its conclusion.
The European legislation in question is intended to create a framework for assessing nutrition and health claims. A nutrition claim is one where a product says that it contains calcium or vitamins, say, or is “high in fibre”. A health claim relates to the alleged consequences of a nutritional claim, such as that the calcium in it “promotes strong bones”.
The European Commission asked member states to gather information from across the union so that the range of nutrition and health claims being made for products could be assessed. Most of the nutrition claims were easy to handle, as they are based on well-established science. These were appended to the original legislation in an annex. But the health claims were such a big issue that they were passed to a review panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for evaluation before being included in the legislation.
On October 1st the EFSA announced its decisions on 523 of a total of around 4,000 claims. About two-thirds of its decisions were negative. In one, for example, the panel decided there was no causal relationship between the consumption of dried cocoa extract and the maintenance or achievement of normal body weight.
Headlines have also been made by the rejection of 180 claims for so-called probiotic ingredients, which are live microorganisms, such as bacteria, that are believed to be beneficial to health. In fact, only ten such claims were rejected outright. The other 170 could not be assessed because the panel had insufficient information to characterise the strains of bacteria used.
According to Miguel Fernandes da Silva, a consultant with European Advisory Services, a company that advises on the regulation of food products, this was unfair. At the beginning of the process half of the 4,000 original claims were judged to require further information—and time was given to provide it. That courtesy was not extended to many of the rejected probiotic and botanical claims (botanicals are plant extracts that are thought to have health benefits in foods) and so claimants were given no opportunity to provide the additional data the review panel needed.
Alpha and omega
There is also a row over how the European legislation is being applied to omega-3s. It is not every day that an international consortium of concerned lipid scientists gets upset, but just such a group, rallied by Jack Winkler of the Nutrition Policy Unit at London Metropolitan University, is on the warpath. The group says the regulation of omega-3s that has been adopted so far has no foundation in science, will legalise the deception of consumers and will make public health worse. The problem, in the group’s view, is that companies are now allowed to claim that a product is rich in omega-3s irrespective of whether these are long-chain or short-chain molecules.
Albert Flynn, the chairman of the EFSA panel, says this point will be resolved when a product requires authorisation for a health claim derived from its omega-3 content, as only those products containing long-chain omega-3s are likely to be able to provide any evidence to support such claims. The Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the European Union, however, seems to agree with the lipid biologists. It says that the labelling of omega-3s should be clear about which type is contained in a product. Where this is not already the case among its members, it said it would address the matter.
The lipid biologists have other complaints. One is that a product can now claim to be high in long-chain omega-3s, yet be of questionable value because it also contains high levels of omega-6 fatty acids. Omega-6s are unsaturated fats found in, for example, maize and sunflower oils—large quantities of which are consumed in many countries in the West, as consumers reject the “unhealthy” saturated fats found in products such as butter and lard, and turn instead to margarines and vegetable oils (see Note to self).
Another issue is that manufacturers are keen to advertise the health benefits of their products, while keeping quiet about the disbenefits. The FDA is expected to address this in its review, and thus to put an end to cereals being advertised as full of wholegrains, whilst simultaneously being full of sugar. In Europe, the legislation specifies that not all foods may be permitted to carry health claims, and the intention is that foods of poor nutritional quality would not be eligible. However, Dr Flynn says the criteria for determining which foods will be eligible are controversial and have not yet been agreed.
Yet another problem the lipid biologists have is with the amount of long-chain omega-3s that the EFSA has recommended it is desirable to consume. This figure, 250mg a day, is, in the option of Dr Winkler’s group, too low. Dr Flynn argues that there is no agreement on the daily amount, so the EFSA has been conservative. Dr Winkler’s group says that the dose suggested by averaging the 15 studies on the matter that have been conducted over the past two decades is 566mg a day.
As the ingredients of food become ever more characterised and understood, and their links to human health established, the EFSA has a difficult problem applying a scientifically rigorous approach to health-related claims without assuming the weighty bureaucracy of a pharmaceuticals regulator. Ironically, it is precisely because long-chain omega-3s offer such large health benefits that scientists feel that they are obliged to stand up and challenge the authority, for this is a decision that could affect the health of a generation.
Research published in Nature this week reveals more evidence explaining how fish oil works. It turns out that the body converts it into a chemical called resolvin D2. This reduces the inflammation associated with many diseases, including strokes and arthritis, without suppressing the immune system. Such knowledge helps blur the distinction between a nutrient and a drug. Unfortunately for bureaucrats, that blurring also makes regulation harder.
= 0) {
geo_beg = geo_beg + geo_str.length;
var geo_end = document.cookie.indexOf(‘;’,geo_beg)+1;
if(geo_end==-1)geo_end=document.cookie.length;
userRegion = document.cookie.substring(geo_beg,geo_end-1)
}
if (userRegion.length) {
var region = ‘articlePrintSubscription_’ + userRegion;
} else {
var region = ‘articlePrintSubscription’;
}var notWrittenText=true;
for (x in _HTML[‘name’]) {
if (_HTML[‘name’][x].toLowerCase() == region.toLowerCase()) {
_Text =_HTML[‘text’][x];
notWrittenText = false;
break;
}
}if (notWrittenText) {
_Text = _BasicHTML[‘text’][0];
}Want more? Subscribe to The Economist and get the week’s most relevant news and analysis.
One of three articles on directions in the food industry. The article on Nestle is also worth a gander.



