Ambivalence is a tough concept when it comes to decision-making. On the one hand, when people have ambivalence but haven't explored why they are ambivalent, they are prone to bad, value-incongruent decisions. On the other hand, acknowledging and exploring ambivalence may lead to better, more ethical, and less biased decisions.

On today's podcast, Joshua Briscoe, Bryanna Moore, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby, and Olubukunola Dwyer discuss the challenges of ambivalence and ways to address them. This podcast was initially sparked by Josh's "Note From a Family Meeting" Substack post titled "Ambivalence in Clinical Decision-Making," which discussed Bryanna's and Jenny's 2022 article titled "Two Minds, One Patient: Clearing up Confusion About Ambivalence."

Bryanna's and Jenny's article is particularly unique as it discusses these "ambivalent-related phenomena" and that these different kinds of "ambivalence" may call for different approaches with patients, surrogates (and health care providers):

In addition to defining these "ambivalent related phenomena" we ask our guests to cover some of these topics:

• Is ambivalence good, bad, or just a normal part of decision-making?

• Does being ambivalent mean you don't care about the decision?

• What should we be more worried about in decision-making, ambivalence or the lack thereof?

• The concern about resolving ambivalence too quickly, as it might rush past important work that needs to be done to make a good decision.

• What about ambivalence on the part of the provider? How should we think about that?

• How do you resolve ambivalence?

Lastly, the one takeaway point from this podcast is that the next time I see ambiguity (or have it myself), I should ask the following question: "I see you are struggling with this decision. Tell me how you are feeling about it."