ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2018
In Defense of "Denial": Difficulty Knowing When Beliefs Are Unrealistic and Whether Unrealistic Beliefs Are Bad.
Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness, pharmaceutical pricing and the value flower - doing some gardening.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- 'The Hero's journey': Narratives on the transition to motherhood with cystic fibrosis.British journal of health psychology · 2026Article
- Wish to die trying to live: unwise or incapacitous? The case of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust versus 'ST'.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Talking about desire to die: Talking past each other? A framework analysis of interview triads with patients, informal caregivers, and health professionals.Palliative & supportive care · 2025Article
- Denial as an ethical problem: the example of ICU triage in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.Asian journal of medical humanities · 2024Article
- Balancing ethical norms and duties for the introduction of new medicines through conditional marketing authorization: a research agenda.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Hope and Optimism in Pediatric Deep Brain Stimulation: Key Stakeholder Perspectives.Neuroethics · 2023Article
- Deep Brain Stimulation for Pediatric Dystonia: Clinicians' Perspectives on the Most Pressing Ethical Challenges.Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery · 2023Article
- Epistemic Beliefs: Relationship to Future Expectancies and Quality of Life in Cancer Patients.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2022Article
- Moral Distress in Healthcare Providers Who Take Care of Critical Pediatric Patients throughout Italy-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Italian Pediatric Instrument.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Optimism bias in understanding neonatal prognoses.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021Article
- Article
- Comparison of Patient and Expert Perceptions of the Attainment of Research Milestones in Parkinson's Disease.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2021Article
- Pediatric Deep Brain Stimulation for Dystonia: Current State and Ethical Considerations.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bioethicists often draw sharp distinctions between hope and states like denial, self-deception, and unrealistic optimism. But what, exactly, is the difference between hope and its more suspect cousins? One common way of drawing the distinction focuses on accuracy of belief about the desired outcome: Hope, though perhaps sometimes misplaced, does not involve inaccuracy in the way that these other states do. Because inaccurate beliefs are thought to compromise informed decision making, bioethicists have considered these states to be ones where intervention is needed either to correct the person's mental state or to persuade the person to behave differently, or even to deny the person certain options (e.g., another round of chemotherapy). In this article, we argue that it is difficult to determine whether a patient is really in denial, self-deceived, or unrealistically optimistic. Moreover, even when we are confident that beliefs are unrealistic, they are not always as harmful as critics contend. As a result, we need to be more permissive in our approach to patients who we believe are unrealistically optimistic, in denial, or self-deceived-that is, unless patients significantly misunderstand their situation and thus make decisions that are clearly bad for them (especially in light of their own values and goals), we should not intervene by trying to change their mental states or persuade them to behave differently, or by paternalistically denying them certain options (e.g., a risky procedure).
Indexed as
Identifiers
30235093What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.