Truth in medicine is a big discussion among many medical professionals about how doctors handle the truth. Truth to a patient can be presented in many ways and different doctors have different ways of handling it. Many often believe that patient’s being fully aware of their health; such as a bad diagnosis, could lead to depression compared to not knowing the diagnosis. In today’s society doctor’s are expected to deliver patient’s the whole truth in order for patients to actively make their own health decisions. Shelly K. Schwartz discusses the truth in her essay, Is It Ever Ok to Lie to Patients?. Schwartz argument is that patients should be told the truth about their health and presented and addressed in a way most comfortable to the patient. …show more content…
When it comes to a bad diagnosis it is often difficult for doctors to tell their patients this devastating news. The doctor will likely hold back from telling the patient the whole truth about their health because they believe the patient will become depressed. However, Schwartz argues that telling the patient the whole truth about their illness will cause depression and anxiety, but rather telling the patient the whole truth will empower and motivate the patient to make the most of their days. Many doctors will often also prescribe or offer treatment that will likely not help their health, but the doctors do so to make patients feel as though their may be a solution to the problem as they are unaware to the limited number of days they may have left. In comparison, people who are aware there is no cure to their diagnosis and many choose to live their last days not in the hospital or pain free from medications without a treatment holding them back. They can choose to live their last days with their family and will have more time and awareness to handle a will. Schwartz argues the importance of telling patients the truth about their diagnosis and communicating the person’s likely amount of time left as it will affect how the patient chooses to live their limited
One day while doing his job, a physician used a used swab that was possibly infected with HIV on another patient. When looked at by certain people, the doctor did the correct thing by telling his patient that he roused a swab on him/her. However, the chances of this patient getting HIV was substantially low, and he should have waited for the patient to develop symptoms, which would have been rare, before telling the truth. As stated by Michael Greenberg, “he might have done better by keeping his mouth shut.” If the doctor did lie, he could have lied to protect himself, the quality of life of the patient, and his ability to help others with their lives. If he had not told the patient that he used the swab on him/her, he/she would not have had to live in fear of getting HIV. Because of this decision of truth telling, the doctor lost his job, money, confidence, and also affected someone’s quality of life.
One of the most complex, ever-changing careers is the medical field. Physicians are not only faced with medical challenges, but also with ethical ones. In “Respect for Patients, Physicians, and the Truth”, by Susan Cullen and Margaret Klein, they discuss to great extent the complicated dilemmas physicians encounter during their practice. In their publication, Cullen and Klein discuss the pros and cons of disclosing the medical diagnosis (identifying the nature or cause of the disease), and the prognosis (the end result after treating the condition). But this subject is not easily regulated nor are there guidelines to follow. One example that clearly illustrates the ambiguity of the subject is when a patient is diagnosed with a serious, life-threatening
In “How Doctors Die,” Dr. Ken Murray explains some different real stories about people having terminal diseases, and how their doctors and physicians treat them. Moreover, the author mentions about difficult decisions that not only the doctors but patients and the patients’ family also have to choose. When the patients’ diseases become critical, the doctors have to do whatever they can to help the patients, such as surgical treatment, chemotherapy, or radiation, but they cannot help the patients in some cases. In additions, doctors still die by critical diseases, too. Although they are doctors, they are just normal people and cannot resist all of the diseases. Like other patients, the doctors having critical diseases want to live instead of
The PBS Frontline documentary Being Mortal focuses on doctors and their patients who are dealing with chronic illness and nearing the end of their life. It investigates how some doctors are ill-equipped to talk about chronic illness and death with their patients and how this can lead to a lesser quality of life at the end of life stage for patients. In this documentary, we followed Dr. Atul Gawade on his journey to educate himself and others about the difficult emotional aspects of dying. The director, Thomas Jennings, along with Dr. Gawade, created a fantastic documentary about how it is important for doctors to talk to dying patients about their mortality. This was effectively done by offering experiences and interviews from doctors and their patients, by following the declining path of the patient, and by showing the real life emotion of the patients, families and doctors working through to the end.
Thanks in part to the scientific and technological advances of todays’ society, enhanced medicinal treatment options are helping people battle illnesses and diseases and live longer than ever before. Despite these advances, however, many people with life threatening illnesses have needs and concerns that are unidentified and therefore unmet at the end of life, notes Arnold, Artin, Griffith, Person and Graham (2006, p. 62). They further noted that when these needs and concerns remain unmet, due in part to the failure of providers to correctly evaluate these needs, as well as the patients’ reluctance to discuss them (p. 63, as originally noted by Heaven & Maguire, 1997), a patient’s quality of life may be adversely affected. According to Bosma et al. (2010, p. 84), “Many generalist social work skills regarding counseling, family systems, community resources, and psychosocial assessments are relevant to working with patients and families with terminal illness”, thereby placing social workers in the distinctive position of being able to support and assist clients with end of life decisions and care planning needs. In fact, they further noted that at some point, “most social work practitioners will encounter adults, children, and families who are facing progressive life limiting illness, dying, death, or bereavement” (p. 79).
In the magazine Newsweek, Mack Lipkin wrote an article titled “On Telling Patients the Truth.” In this piece, he summarizes his belief that medical information should be withheld from the patient because it is impossible to be completely truthful. This action is justified because patients won’t be able to understand the information, misinterpretation often occurs, and some people just don’t want to know the truth. I disagree with Lipkin’s thesis. I believe that physicians have a moral obligation to tell their patients relevant information about their disease, unless the patient clearly states that he/she does not want to hear it. Patients should be given this information because medicine is patient-centered, communication is necessary to build trust in a patient-doctor relationship, and withholding the truth seems to be more harmful to the patient in the long run.
Should doctors tell the truth to their patients? How much information should the patient know about a certain ill or operation? These controversial questions are asked more frequently in our society. Patients nowadays,. are very sensitive to certain diseases more than before. This paper argues against telling the truth in doctor-patient relationship. Not by defending the idea directly but, by presenting first how truth can be harmful to the patient and by giving Higgs’ objection to it, then by giving my own objection to Higgs’ argument.
For the purpose of this case study, I will specifically examine the ethical issues of medical paternalism and deception-to-benefit-the-patient and whether their use can be viewed as justifiable. The act of “overriding a person’s actions or decision-making for his [or her] own good” or paternalism exercised by Dr. Haveford by choosing not to disclose all information to his patient can be evaluated through both the empirical and moral arguments against paternalism argued by Alan Goldman’s “The Refutation of Medical Paternalism” (Vaughn). It is mentioned that the doctor withheld information about clinical trials because he did not what to overwhelm the patient or cause her to experience emotional harm and, thus, he was acting in the best interest of his patient despite being aware of her value for honesty in their
There is only one circumstance in which it is okay for doctors to lie to their patients. The main thing that doctors must abide by is to do no harm. It is acceptable to withhold information when a patient is in a critical condition and hearing bad news could possibly make their situation worse. At that point, I believe it is okay for the doctor to lie to the patient and tell them that they will be okay in order to give them hope. This could lead them to feel better for a few days and after that it is necessary for the doctor to tell them the truth. However, this is circumstantial. If the patient does not even have the chance to survive a couple more days, then the doctor must tell them the truth up front. But if it increases the likelihood
Moving forward, people should be able to be put out of their misery of their terminal illness. This is something that without a doubt will tear a person to shreds. This type of news, “can trigger feelings of depression, in both patient and loved one. These feelings can be severe or mild and can often be just one of the stages that a person goes through when learning of catastrophic news” (Terminal Illness). Some terminal illnesses this time is also very stressful with decisions that one can make. Although depending on what the patient has, the illness can be brutal and
In “Should Doctors Tell the Truth?”, Collins argues that withholding the truth from patients is justified. Withholding the truth is the act of allowing another party to have a belief that is known to be false. Collins’ argument for withholding the truth from patients are supported by the following premises: Most patients do not want to know the truth, telling the truth can harm the patient, and doctors should not harm patients. Therefore, doctors should lie to patients.
First and foremost, it is essential that health care providers remain empathetic, knowledgeable and non-judgemental towards people facing a chronic illness. This will allow the patient to feel comfortable with their health care provider and help instill a sense of trust within the relationship. Several researchers postulated that hope evolves from a therapeutic relationship between patient and care provider, within which the patient feels heard, valued and respected (Hawthorn, 2015). This idea reflects the major importance of active listening by health care providers. Throughout the therapeutic relationship, it is beyond important for health care providers to refrain from pretending to understand what their patient may be experiencing or going through in terms of their chronic illness. “Findings from an early study by (Thorne, 1990) documented that chronically ill patients and their families often found that most health care providers could not be trusted to understand the requirements of managing a chronic health condition” (Bucher, Camera, Dirksen, Heitkemper, Lewis, 2014, p.75). This finding raises an important reminder that the patients are the most valuable and knowledgeable source of information concerning their illness, and that the greatest understanding of the illness will be
Cancer patients often wonder if going through treatments like chemotherapy and radiation are worth the risk of the side effects, in addition to the cancerous side effects. They feel that they can’t enjoy or relax in what a short amount of time they have left because they are bedridden from the nausea and pain that treatments put them through. Patients tell their loved ones to just let them die so long as they don’t have to go through any more pain. Those who are too old, are unable to recover from the effects, or are just too far in the grips of cancer, should refuse the more harsh treatments like chemo and radiation. On the positive side, refusing treatments after a certain point can save their families from the stress and cost of hospital bills. If caught early enough, patients can opt for safer and easier routes to getting rid of cancer like surgery or by doing a stem cell transplant.
When we discuss about the honesty in medicine, there will be multitudinous facts regarding this topic. First things first. Honesty in medicine is a fundamental pillar as well as cornerstone of our profession as a doctor who works in medical field. Honesty plays a crucial role in the field of medicine. In medicine, we are often the one who deliver the brutal honesty to our patients. In order to relieve the fears and anxieties of the patients, should physicians choose not to tell the naked truth to them? This may seem uncomplicated but it is actually a ticklish question. Nearly one third of physicians do not agree that medical erroneousness or other predicaments should be disclosed to patients. Not telling the truth may has numerous purposes, take various forms and lead to many different consequences.
"Honesty is the best policy," is a phrase many people still hear regularly. Most people tell their first lie when they are kids. Telling a lie is an exceptionally strange propensity because naturally everyone knows how to tell one. Mass numbers of individuals lie for various reasons that include the need to provide self-protection, the lie is oblivious to the liar, and to enhance another's feelings.