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.
In Collins’ support of the first premise, he states the effects of revealing the truth to patients. He believes, in most cases, the patient knowing the truth would not be able to handle it. This would commonly bring up two states, one where the patient completely denies the
…show more content…
possibility of the truth being true, and another where the truth drives the patient into a feeling of complete isolation and depression. His second premise discusses what will happen if the patient were to know the truth.
Throughout his readings he recalls multiple cases where patients who were told the truth were harmed as a result. In one case, a lawyer who found out the truth of his shoulder pain, but didn’t believe it died from an untreated disease. In another case, a friend of his who wouldn’t dare believe in his wife’s sexuality committed suicide.
The third premise concerns the stance of many doctors, which is not to bring any harm to their patients. Collins supports this premise by recalling a lesson he learned from one of his early teachers. This lesson reveals if a patient shows a sign of a disease, but this disease is not yet life threatening, the doctor reserves the right to not tell the truth. By telling the truth, Collins believes that it would cause the patient unnecessary harm in the case that the patient may recover. Therefore, Doctors should lie to
…show more content…
patients. I disagree with Collins’ argument for encouraging doctors to lie to their patients. Collins fails to realize that the act of withholding the truth strips patients of their autonomy, there is no solid proof for Collins to determine what patients truly want, and Collins does not consider that withholding the truth can also cause harm to patients. My first premise is to show how Collins fails to realize that the act of withholding the truth strips patients of their autonomy. Collins argues that the best way to assure that patients remain unharmed is to withhold the truth from them. In doing this, patients are no longer in control of their own lives and the decision has already been made for them. For example, A dentist has determined that a patient is showing early signs of tooth decay due to an improper health care regimen. The dentist decides to withhold the truth after deciding that the type of tooth decay is not yet urgent. The patient’s next visit results in the dentist finding the patient’s case of tooth decay appears at a much worst state, maybe even beyond repair. In this situation, If the dentist had not withheld the truth from the patient, the patient could have improved their oral hygiene and avoid severe tooth decay. Without taking initiative, the patient is to succumb to the consequences due to the doctor withholding the truth. The second premise shows that Collins lacks proof to determine what a patient truly wants.
Collins argues that most patients do not want to know the truth. He supports this by suggesting, but not clearly stating, the patient’s emotional wellbeing is proof of this decision. I believe that using emotions to gauge a patient’s decision is not a liable method. In a time of high stress and decision making, there are several emotions that can emerge. Some may cry in frustration, laugh hysterically in disbelief or even become silent in affirmation of their current situation. Because of the variety in response, it is impossible to determine whether the patient wishes to know the truth or not unless verbally
stated. The last premise argues that Collins does not consider that withholding the truth can also cause harm to the patient. Collins has stated in his experience there were multiple cases where telling the truth severely harmed his patients. I argue that there is just as many experiences that resulted poorly because of the truth being withheld. Examples such as, allowing a patient to take the wrong medicine, allowing the patient to believe false information on the state of their health, and so on. Withholding the truth from patients can prove to be detrimental and it should be the moral duty of every doctor to prevent this. I have argued against Collins’ belief that doctors should lie to their patients. He argues on the grounds that most patients don’t want to know the truth, telling the truth can harm the patient, and doctors shouldn’t harm patients. I have argued that Collins’ fails to realize the act of withholding the truth strips patients of their autonomy, there is no proof for Collins to determine what patients truly want, and Collins does not consider that withholding the truth can cause harm to patients. My argument and defense prove that there is fault in Collin’s argument, and that doctors should not lie to their patients.
… The doctors present agreed that there is no objective way of measuring or judging the claims of patients that their suffering is unbearable. And if it is difficult to measure suffering, how much more difficult to determine the value of a patient's statement that her life is not worth living?
The medical values learned in chapter 11 are, emotional detachment, professional socialization, clinical experience, mastering uncertainty, mechanistic model, intervention, and emphasis on acute and rare illnesses. The three that I mainly care about are, emotional detachment, mastering uncertainty, and clinical experience. Emotional detachment is a very important medical value because this can strongly affect not only the patient but the doctor as well. The doctor is supposed to sustain emotional detachment from patients. (Weitz 276). A doctor should try and keep their distance because their emotion can strongly affect the patient. How a doctor reacts or approaches a situation will show how they are with emotional detachment. Mastering
Cullen and Klein understand that deception is wrong and disrespectful to the patient but criticize that some cases are more complicated and not so black and white. They argue that physicians should be able to withhold information that can significantly benefit the patient. The key part is that the benefit is greater than what the deception causes.
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
Everyone struggles with admitting the truth. No matter how people are raised they still seem to fall into a situation where they feel lying is their only way out. Lying is the truth being hidden, therefore, withholding information is equivalent to lying. The truth may seem hidden but it will always reveal itself. In Frank Peretti’s novel, The Prophet, consequences such distrust, vices, and misunderstanding follow all the characters that lack truth.
After reading Should Doctors Tell the Truth by Joseph Collins, I started steer away from Collins views. I disagree with Collins thesis because it isn’t permissible to take control of anyone’s autonomy whether or not it’s in his or her best interest.
But the success couldn't last. Things truly were too good to be true. As we saw, red flags were being thrown up all over the place. The evidence was growing overwhelmingly that the words being attributed to the patients were, in fact, the words of the facilitators.
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true” (Kierkegaard)- Misleading oneself by accepting things as true or valid when they are not is a common phenomenon of nearly every human being, especially when faced with life changing of threatening situations. Self-deception can therefore be considered an option to escape reality in order to prevent oneself from dealing with the weight of a situation. Basically, those strong influencing psychological forces keep us from acknowledging a threatening situation or truth. However, oftentimes people do not realize that they are deceiving themselves, for it is mostly the action of the subconscious mind to protect especially the psychological well- being. This psychological state is depicted and in Ambrose Bierce’s short story “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”. He shows that people try to escape reality and seek refuge in self-deception when confronted with life-threatening situations, through characterization, alternate point of view, and the fluidity of time.
I have recently examined my latest patient, on OCtober 23 at 10:45 A.M. The patient has been accused with the murder of the old man. The patient admits to what he has done but his beliefs make him think that he is completely sane and not mad. “The disease had sharpened my senses-not destroyed-not dulled them”(Poe 203).
In “Should Doctors Tell the Truth?” Joseph Collins argues for paternalistic deception, declaring that it is permissible for physicians to deceive their patients when it is in their best interests. Collins considers his argument from a “pragmatic” standpoint, rather than a moral one, and uses his experience with the sick to justify paternalistic deception. Collins argues that in his years of practicing, he has encountered four types of patients who want to know the truth: those that want to know so they know how much time they have left, those who do not want to know and may suffer if told the truth, those who are incapable of hearing the truth, and those who do not have a serious diagnosis (605). Collins follows with the assertion that the more serious the condition is, the less likely the patient is to seek information about their health (606).
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
In an ideal medical society, no dilemma should arise on whistleblowing associated with poor medical practice or illegal behaviours. However these dilemmas arise when these whistle blowers take privileged information to the public in order to address their personal concerns or conscience. It can however be said that they are often left with little or no choice. Lipley (2001) discusses a case which occurred in the UK where a nurse wrote to the media reportedly that the elderly inpatients at her organisation did not receive adequate care and that this was jeopardising their lives. The appeals tribunal ruled that her decision was right and was both reasonable and an acceptable way to raise such issues ...
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
Being honest requires courage and sacrifice. A lot of times people lie in fear of getting in trouble, to protect them and to protect other people. And other times, people simply do not follow through with what they say. In many cases, this leads to disappointment and mistrust. Having a high level of integrity is a core value of being a nurse and is one of the most important characteristics we can possess. Coming from a place of integrity means being reliable and giving a helping hand. This could mean answering a call light of a patient who is not “yours” or accommodating a request even if you do not want to. Looking back, I wish that had been the case in the terminal years of my grandfather’s life. Honesty is a value that
By using this approach, her intention is to appeal more to real life events by connecting with the audience through their values and interests to further her point. To prove the ethical side of her argument, she uses reasons shown in the study of "Participants reported having too little time or being too busy to seek medical care, that clinic hours were inconvenient (e.g., “Have to take time off from work”), that transportation was difficult or the distance was too far, that they were too sick to travel to the doctor’s office, or that an existing physical (e.g., multiple sclerosis) or mental health (e.g., depression, severe anxiety) problem prevented them from going” (Taber, Jennifer M., et al). Treatment of a medical issue whether it is something so miniscule like a common cold to being diagnosed with cancer should never be required to be put off due to these struggles. She uses the ethical appeal to her readers by stating issues ordinary people face in seeking medical care and making them aware that if these ways are not altered, it could lead to a higher number of preventative