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.”