
Patient Deaths, Inner Scars, and Physicians' Need to Grieve
Taylor recalls this experience in 'We Grieve Too,' an essay originally published on the JAMA Network :
As I stood up on stage in my technicolor dress, staring back into the tear-soaked faces of her classmates, teachers, neighbors, cousins, grandparents, soccer teammates, youth group friends, aunts, uncles, her younger brother, her dad, her mom — the village that surrounded this little girl during her short life — I had just one thought: I couldn't save her.
Molly Taylor MD
Taylor is not alone in experiencing grief tinged with guilt after losing a patient. Althoughthe prevalence of provider grief hasn't been widely examined, a JPSM review published in 2023 indicated that it's a significant issue in many areas of medicine. The review mentions 12 studies with 1137 healthcare providers showing that they commonly had moderate and sometimes long-term grief reactions after a patient's death.
While it may feel as if doctors are expected to be detached from these feelings, they are, at the end of the day, simply human.
Bearing the Burden of Outcomes
Leeat Granek, PhD
Leeat Granek, PhD, is a critical health psychologist and associate professor at York University School of Health Policy and Management in Toronto who publishes extensively on grief and loss. In her decades of research, Granek has learned that the grief physicians experience has a lot to do with their sense of responsibility toward their patients. Consequently, grief over a patient's death is colored with a sense of failure or guilt, even when they understand they weren't responsible for the outcome. 'And that's a really hard emotion to sit with,' Granek acknowledges.
She notes that many physicians define error — and, subsequently, failure — as being dependent on outcomes. 'But that's not really the definition of an error,' she explains. '[Physicians] might make the exact same decision in the next case, and it would be lifesaving. So, there's this construction of a story around a negative outcome that goes back to the individual physician and how they experience grief.'
When grief feels like failure, there can be reluctance to accept it. 'A lot of times in medicine, we think of it like a battle we're trying to fight against whatever disease process is happening that is endangering this life,' says Priya Roy, MD, a third-year fellow in cardiovascular medicine at The Ohio State University. 'We have a hard time saying, 'This person is dying — from a physiological standpoint — and maybe there isn't something we can do about it,' and I think that's what makes people really uncomfortable.'
Granek points out that when her mother died of cancer at a young age, she experienced feelings of sadness, body aches, difficulty sleeping, etc. 'But I didn't feel a sense of failure or guilt because there was no perceived causality between her dying and something I've done,' she says.
Long-term Connections
Granek says that the depth of grief is also related to attachment with the deceased person. The result is that some medical specialties may experience more intense grief than others, for example, in oncology where patient care is often long term.
The JPSM review noted that, in multiple studies, certain hospital specialties were particularly impacted by provider grief, such as adult and pediatric oncology, palliative care, pediatrics, perinatal care, emergency medicine, critical care, and surgery. A survey of 1000 members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists indicated that 53.7% of physicians caring for women who had a stillbirth reported high levels of grief; other symptoms reported included self-doubt (17.2%), depression (16.9%) and self-blame (16.4%).
For Roy, that comes with the territory of working in the Coronary Care Unit (CCU). 'It might be easier in some capacity not to form bonds with your patients and hold everybody at arm's length,' she says. 'But I want to get to know my patients. I want to learn what's going on in their lives. I want them to tell me the things that scare them and the things that bring them joy so I can actually help them make decisions that will be beneficial to them.'
Roy's personal experience of losing her father to cancer has informed her patient relationships, leading her to 'get closer to patients who were either nearing the end of their life or who have been dealt a devastating diagnosis,' she says, 'because I know what it feels like to feel alone in that.'
Granek's personal experience with loss also shaped her career as a psychologist, specializing in grief and loss among healthcare professionals. Her mother lived with cancer for nearly 20 years before passing away in 2005 at age 33. During that time, the family formed strong bonds with the healthcare team. 'And then those relationships get severed,' Granek says. 'It's a weird experience, because you've had this intense, close, important relationship with this team and then you don't see them ever again.'
The 'Good' Death
There's also the nature of the death to consider. Was it a 'good death' as defined by The Institute of Medicine: 'one that is free from avoidable suffering for patients, families and caregivers in general accordance with the patients' and families' wishes.' Or a 'bad death' where the patient experienced unrelieved physical and emotional suffering — terms that feel loaded with responsibility and judgement, even if indirectly.
Or was the death unexpected? 'Our colleagues in ICU or emergency room have very intense, brief interactions with patients at the end of their life, and it's a different sort of flavor, and that also complicates the grief,' acknowledges Taylor.
Additionally, the frequency of patient loss can take a toll. Roy recalls the time her team lost five patients in 48 hours in the CCU. 'Some people can become sort of numb to the experience of losing patients,' says Roy. 'We're forced by the nature of the work that we do to compartmentalize to a certain extent. Maybe in the short term that's helpful to care for your other patients that day, but in the long term, it's not healthy. It eventually catches up with you.'
Grief Unchecked and Untrained
While everyone experiences grief, pathological bereavement outcomes (ie, complicated grief, traumatic grief, prolonged grief disorder) can develop if it is ignored. After losing her father, Roy recalls how her mother, a pulmonary critical care doctor, used work to distract herself from the devastation of her husband's passing.
Christine Yu Moutier, MD
'The longer grief sits unattended and unprocessed, the more likely it's going to manifest in any number of other sequelae, like burnout, or sleep disruption or anger problems or substance abuse or even down the pathway to PTSD or suicide risk,' says Christine Yu Moutier, MD, psychiatrist and chief medical officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.
In fact, a 2025 study reveals that physicians were three times more likely to have a job-related trauma or loss as part of the lead up to suicide as compared to the general population.
Mark Greenawald, MD
'It's not a question of, 'Do we have grief?' We have grief every day,' says Mark Greenawald, MD, vice chair, family and community medicine at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine. 'It's just a question of how we're processing it.' In his experience, learning to process grief isn't built into the medical school curriculum. Instead, Greenawald says he was trained to be compassionate for others, to hold suffering for patients and their families, which can be a lot to bear.
That's not to say medical education turns a blind eye. 'Probably 20-30 years ago, I think the overall idea was, 'Don't get close to your patients, this is a job,' and the issue [of grief] was never really addressed,' says Prarthna Bhardwaj, MD, a hematologist and medical oncologist at Baystate Health in Massachusetts. 'You were told not to wear your heart on your sleeve with patients, because they are relying on you to be a professional.'
Bhardwaj believes medical education has since evolved with 'a lot more focus on how to cope with what you experience and more emphasis on overall mental wellbeing. But we still have a long way to go.'
Taylor says there's no explicit or formal way that dealing with patient loss is addressed in training. The focus is on reviewing procedures during morbidity and mortality rounds, not feelings. 'That can be a difficult venue for people to go about processing,' Taylor says. 'And if someone says, 'I did this differently, and I had a great outcome with a patient,' that doesn't serve anybody in the moment.'
Greenawald puts it more bluntly: 'In healthcare, grief is seen as a sign of weakness or incompetence.'
A Space to Grieve
It's widely understood that COVID, and the overwhelming number of patient deaths that came with it, took a tremendous toll on healthcare workers. During the pandemic, hospitals were motivated to create what Taylor refers to as 'grief adjacent' programs and interventions to improve wellbeing. However, a physician must not only self-enroll in these but also take time outside of work to participate.
Granek acknowledges that these interventions are well-intentioned but also problematic. 'I'm a psychologist; I have nothing against therapy or mindfulness programs,' she says. 'But those are very individual solutions to a global problem.'
They are also reactionary, adds Greenawald. 'Crisis interventions are absolutely essential, but it's just the tip of the need.'
So, what might help? Granek says that when she asks healthcare providers what would best help them cope with loss, they overwhelmingly respond that they want a space where their grief is acknowledged.
'Historically, on the physician side in medical culture, there hasn't been an intentional space created for grief,' says Taylor. To fill that gap, she has been deliberate about bolstering a community with her fellow oncologists. 'We have a space to debrief, but that's very informal,' she says, adding that the burden is on physicians to create these groups.
In 2019, Greenawald began to wonder if something could be put in place to help clinicians without being too overt or elementary: a space to talk about difficult cases and their emotional impact. A year later, he launched PeerRXMed, a free, peer-supported program designed to help physicians and others on a care team form meaningful connections. Participants self-select a friend with whom they'll work through the program, requiring as little as a 15-second weekly check in. Today, PeerRXMed continues to thrive and eventually Greenawald hopes to develop an app.
Roy and her classmate at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Kortni Ferguson, MD, launched their website BereaveMED in 2019 to provide a space where medical students experiencing grief and loss could share their stories and build community. The site also offers an extensive list of resources, including links to blogs, podcasts, support groups and research.
Many in the field acknowledge the challenges in creating an in-house grieving space for healthcare providers, because there's no one-size-fits all solution; grief is contextual. Granek suggests the approach should be integrated into the day-to-day rather than something the physician needs to deal with outside of work. It also needs to be modeled from the top down in order to normalize it, starting with the chair of the department.
She also notes that one must consider the issue of departmental dynamics. 'How well do the people get along? How competitive is this environment? You have to deal with the relational culture of the department before you can ask people to open up about their vulnerabilities.'
'The approach has to be systemic rather than individual,' Granek adds. 'And preferably that education starts early in medical education.'
In the meantime, Moutier encourages physicians to talk about patient loss with someone they trust. 'Whether that's a mentor, a peer, a therapist, a grief counselor, a spouse,' she says, 'I think the problems are much more likely to be more intense and more severe if you're not talking about it.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Endocrine Disruptors and Kids: What They Are and How to Lower Exposure
Pediatrician-mom tips for understanding endocrine disruptors and making simple swaps You've probably heard the buzz about plastics and their potential risks, especially for children. But what exactly are these risks, and why are certain chemicals, known as endocrine disruptors, gaining attention? As a parent, it's natural to want to make the best choices for your family, but it can feel overwhelming to navigate the sea of information out there. Here's what to know, where they're commonly found, and how to take small, practical steps that feel doable for your family. What are endocrine disruptors? Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the body's hormone systems. Hormones are like messengers that regulate everything from growth and metabolism to reproduction and mood. Endocrine disruptors can mimic or block these hormones when they enter the body. These disruptors can come from natural sources, like plants, or be synthetic and found in many everyday products. Endocrine disruptors can be found in many of the products we use daily, making it difficult to avoid them completely. Over 1,000 endocrine disruptors have been identified, but here are some of the most common ones: BPA (Bisphenol A): Often used in hard plastics like food containers, water bottles, and some older baby bottles and toys. Phthalates and parabens: Found in plastic packaging, shampoos, lotions, and cosmetics. Oxybenzone: Common in certain sunscreens. Lavender and tea tree oils: Often found in skin care products. Lead: Still present in older homes, vintage toys, and contaminated soil. Soy-based products: Contain phytoestrogens, which are chemicals produced by plants that can mimic estrogen in the body. Why it matters for babies and young kids Endocrine disruptors interfere with the body's hormone systems by mimicking hormones like estrogen, blocking normal hormone activity, or altering hormone levels. Endocrine disruptors can affect how hormones are made, broken down, or stored, leading to imbalances. Additionally, they can change how sensitive the endocrine system is to various hormones, increasing or decreasing their effects. This is particularly concerning for pregnant women, infants, and young children who are more vulnerable to these hormonal disruptions during important stages of growth and development. It's important to note that the research is ongoing; however, there is evidence that high exposure to endocrine disruptors can increase the risk of certain health issues. There is less evidence on what the actual safe levels are for people. As more research is available, the risks will become clearer. During pregnancy, research suggests that endocrine disruptors can cross the placenta, leading to low birth weight, thyroid dysfunction, and neurological disorders. Repeated exposure to chemicals like BPA has been linked to early puberty, reproductive malformations, and infertility risks, as well as reproductive cancers. Endocrine disruptors are also associated with metabolic disorders, such as obesity and insulin resistance, and conditions like gynecomastia. While these risks can seem alarming, it's important to acknowledge that most recommendations are aimed at reducing cumulative exposure rather than attempting to eliminate every source of endocrine disruptors. Simple ways to reduce exposure You don't need to eliminate every single source of endocrine disruptors. That's nearly impossible, and not the point. Instead, the goal is to reduce repeat exposure where it's easy and practical to do heating in plastic: Swap out plastic containers for glass or stainless steel, especially when heating food. If using plastic, make sure it's labeled 'BPA-free.' Use BPA-free baby products: Choose infant bottles and toys labeled 'BPA-free,' or consider using glass bottles to reduce exposure. Wash produce thoroughly: Pesticides can carry endocrine disruptors. Rinse fruits and vegetables well, or use a baking soda and water solution to minimize mineral sunscreens: Chemical sunscreens can contain oxybenzone, so consider mineral-based sunscreen made with zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. Check labels for 'Phthalate-Free' or 'Paraben-Free': Opt for personal care products that do not contain these chemicals. Be cautious with essential oils: Avoid the sue of topical formulations of tea tree and lavender oils in children. These can contain chemicals with estrogenic/androgenic properties, and repeated use of these oils has been linked to breast growth in prepubertal girls and plastic toys: especially older or hand-me-down plastic toys, as they may contain higher levels of harmful chemicals. Reduce lead exposure: If you live in an older home, test for lead paint and make sure that any peeling paint is addressed. Choose flame-retardant-free items: if possible, avoid products treated with flame retardants, which can also act as endocrine disruptors. Keeping a balanced perspective Focus on reducing repeated exposure in key areas. Remember, the 'dose makes the poison.' Overexposure is when problems are likely to occur, not from occasional contact with things like receipts or plastic water bottles. It's easy to get swept up in fear, especially with the constant stream of new research on potential health risks. But balance is key. Make mindful choices that fit your family's lifestyle and needs, and don't feel pressured to overhaul everything all at once. Want a calm, clear explanation of endocrine disruptors and which swaps actually matter most? Watch this PedsDocTalk YouTube video for more practical, pediatrician-backed tips.


Fast Company
33 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Profits over people and microplastics in every meal?
For decades, the plastic crisis has always felt far away, whether through time or across distance. But unfortunately, we're no longer talking about environmental pollution 'out there' in the ocean. Microplastics, tiny fragments that come from the breakdown of everyday plastic items, are now inside all of us, turning this from a theoretical risk into a shocking—and deeply personal (physically) —reality. Despite this fact, most Americans remain unaware of just how prevalent microplastics are in our lives. New national research that we conducted with our partners at The 5 Gyres Institute paints a troubling picture: while 77% of Americans say they've heard the term 'microplastics,' only 49% actually understand what it means. Even about half of people—51%—know it's often a result of larger plastic breaking down. The knowledge gap That knowledge gap is more than an academic concern. It's a public health crisis, especially when you consider that, after the term is defined for survey respondents, 90% of Americans state that they're worried about microplastics in the human body—and they're right to be. Science confirms that these particles have been found in breast milk, placental tissue, lungs, brains, blood, and more. And studies are increasingly linking microplastics to serious health impacts, including cancer, heart disease, hormone disruption, and infertility. But even when you close that knowledge gap, people who care often feel stuck. Our research shows that 70% of Americans don't know how to reduce their exposure to microplastics and 67% can't name a single company actively working on the problem (we're hoping to change that!). That sense of powerlessness is as dangerous as the plastic itself, because people want better. They just don't know where to turn. At Grove, we've seen firsthand that Americans are searching for answers and they're looking to us: to companies, brands, and private-sector leaders. They want healthier homes, safer products, and more sustainable choices. They want corporations to lead—not with vague promises, but with bold, measurable action. This is our collective moment. A solution Consumers didn't create the plastic crisis. We, the private sector, did. For decades, our industries have driven plastic adoption in product design, packaging, and sourcing. And we were lied to and manipulated by the petrochemical and plastics industry that shaped this system. Now, we, the private sector in 2025, must dismantle it. That means going beyond plastic. It means rejecting outdated systems that rely on single-use packaging, microbeads, and petrochemical-based materials. It means investing in compostable and refillable formats, shifting supply chains, being transparent about ingredients and sourcing, and leaning into the circular economy. It means learning and being aware of the impact plastics are having in our bodies and environments. It means supporting legislation, like the newly introduced bipartisan Microplastics Safety Act, which calls on the FDA and HHS to investigate and report on the health impacts of microplastics. Most importantly, it means refusing to offload responsibility onto consumers and admitting that recycling, long touted as a solution, simply isn't enough. Only 5% of plastic is recycled and the rest ends up in landfills, incinerators, or breaks down into microplastic particles that pollute our air, food, water, and (if not abundantly clear by now) our bodies. At Grove, we remain unwavering in our commitment to eliminate plastic from the products we make and sell—and to empower others to do the same. But we can't do it alone. The cost of inaction Consumers are demanding accountability. Our research shows that 79% of Americans believe microplastics represent a human and environmental emergency; 82% believe companies should be doing more. But only half (54%) believe that businesses are actually stepping up. That gap is where trust and long-term relevance will be won or lost. The cost of inaction is rising. Not just in terms of public health, but in trust, consumer confidence, and regulatory risk. There will come a time soon when inaction on microplastics will be seen for what it is: negligent at best, and reckless at worst. Companies that continue to delay action on plastic pollution aren't just making a business decision. They're making a decision that directly impacts human health. Brands that cling to plastic-heavy models are effectively choosing profits over people, and they'll have to live with the consequences. But brands that choose to lead? They'll be rewarded with consumer loyalty, resilience, and relevance in a world that's rapidly waking up to this crisis. The science is clear. The public is paying attention. The future will not be plastic. And the time for action is now.


CBS News
34 minutes ago
- CBS News
Report: 13 cases of flesh-eating bacteria, eight deaths confirmed in Florida
Florida has confirmed 13 cases of Vibrio vulnificus—often called "flesh-eating" bacteria—across 11 counties this year, with eight deaths, the Florida Department of Health told CBS News Miami partner el Nuevo Herald. Officials said eight cases were tied to wound exposure but stressed the infections are "sporadic and unrelated to an outbreak." The Sunshine State saw its highest-ever case count in 2024—82 infections and 19 deaths—with health officials noting that hurricanes and storm surges, such as those from Hurricane Helene last year, can push coastal waters inland, heightening infection risks. The bacteria, found in saltwater and brackish water, can cause severe illness or death within one to two days, according to the CDC. Most cases in the U.S. occur in Gulf Coast states. Read the full story from Miami Herald's Sonia Osorio here. Dr. Edward Hirsch, an infectious disease specialist at HCA Florida University Hospital, recommends rinsing off after swimming in ocean water and ensuring seafood is thoroughly cooked. "It's very frightening. Luckily, it's very rare," he added. Here are some key facts about Vibrio vulnificus, according to the CDC: For more information, visit the CDC's Vibrio page.