A practice commonly used in the medical field, “benevolent deception” is the act of physicians suppressing information about diagnoses in hopes of not causing patients emotional turmoil (Skloot 63). Benevolent deception is a contentious subject because when used, the bioethical principles of respect for autonomy and beneficence can conflict with each other. Respect for autonomy is when physicians acknowledge their patients’ abilities to make voluntary decisions on their own regarding their health care (McCormick 4). Meanwhile, beneficence is the duty of doctors to be of a benefit to patients, while also taking measures to prevent and remove harm from them (McCormick 5). When giving patients diagnoses, physicians need to follow these doctrines by creating a balance between telling the truth and providing hope, which is why some may mistakenly turn to benevolent deception as the answer.
In most medical situations, benevolent deception is not permissible because the patients’ given right to autonomy is disrespected by doctors. The only time when this practice is justifiable is if it used as a “last resort”, i.e., during circumstances of crises where there are no alternatives to lying. This type of situation needs to be a life-threatening emergency with limited time available for a doctor to fully explain the diagnosis in a beneficent manner. Also, the reasons for deception must be to prevent psychological distress, and its execution must have a high chance of success so that the patient-doctor relationship will not suffer from a break in trust.
Overall, doctors should always strive to respect autonomy and provide beneficence when interacting with their patients. However, the majority of the time benevolent deception is used the p...
... middle of paper ...
...cal practice. Overall, physicians should not assume what they believe is best for their patients and should be truthful in relaying news about medical conditions, even though the diagnoses may be grave. Though the situation may look bleak, doctors need to take up the responsibility to be honest with their patients in order to honor the principle of respect for autonomy, and yet be beneficent by presenting a sense of realistic hope that treatment will succeed so that they will not easily give up on their chance of living. Only when there is a life-or-death emergency where there little time for the physician to react in both an autonomous and beneficent manner is when benevolent deception can be justified. In any other circumstances, the use of benevolent deception presents too many dangerous consequences that can negatively affect patients in a most devastating way.
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
When we see patients, we must remember that we are not simply treating a disease. We are caring for people with lives, hobbies, jobs, families, and friends, who are likely in a very vulnerable position. We must ensure that we use the status of physicians to benefit patients first and foremost, and do what we promised to when we entered the profession: provide care and improve quality of life, and hopefully leave the world a little better than it was
Healthcare creates unique dilemmas that must consider the common good of every patient. Medical professionals, on a frequent basis, face situations that require complicated, and at times, difficult decision-making. The medical matters they decide on are often sensitive and critical in regards to patient needs and care. In the Case of Marguerite M and the Angiogram, the medical team in both cases were faced with the critical question of which patient gets the necessary medical care when resources are limited. In like manner, when one patient receives the appropriate care at the expense of another, medical professionals face the possibility of liability and litigation. These medical circumstances place a burden on the healthcare professionals to think and act in the best interest of the patient while still considering the ethical and legal issues they may confront as a result of their choices and actions. Medical ethics and law are always evolving as rapid advances in all areas of healthcare take place.
The repetition of “perhaps” only epitomizes the inability to move on from making a mistake. However, this repetitive language also demonstrates the ends a doctor will meet to save a patient’s life (73). Therefore, it is not the doctor, but the medicine itself that can be seen as the gateway from life to death or vice versa. Although the limitations of medicine can allow for the death of a patient to occur, a doctor will still experience emotional turmoil after losing someone he was trying to help. Throughout the collection of essays, the author demonstrates with personal experiences and outside sources that a physician does not ponder about his mistake for long.
Based on them, we can definitely eliminate options (c) and (d). Option (c) is against the principle of veracity and informed consent because the doctor was lying and hiding the information about the patient’s health that the patient was supposed to know. Option (d) is morally incorrect because the patient is lied to and the surgeon is not penalized. Option (b) does abide by the principle of veracity, but is against rationality because it sets negative example for the community that the doctors can be forgiven for their mistakes. Moreover, it does not abide by stewardship because the surgeon is taking advantage of being a doctor to conceal the truth. Consequently, the morally correct decision would be the option (a) because it abides by the principles of veracity and informed consent as the responsibility of disclosing the truth to the patient is fulfilled. Moreover, considering the rationality and stewardship, it will set an example for all the doctors that incomplete disclosure of information to the patient is unacceptable and the doctors should not take advantage of their importance in the
Providers must act in the best interest of the patient and their basic obligation is to do no harm and work for the public’s wellbeing. A physician shall always keep in mind the obligation of preserving human life. Providers must communicate full, accurate and unbiased information so patients can make informed decisions about their health care. As a result of their recommendations, providers are responsible for generating costs in health care but do not generate the need for those expenses. Every hospital has both an ethical as well as a legal responsibility to provide care, even if the care may be uncompensated.
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).
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.
From the utilitarian’s side, lying might be a good choice, since it brings more happiness to the patient. In fact, truthfulness can actually do harm. Patient’s health situation becomes worst when he knows that he have a serious disease. He will become depressed and might suffer from psychological disorders like anxiety which reduces the efficiency of healing. For example people suffering from Nosophobia , Hypochondriasis or Nosocomephobia: “which are an irrational fear of contracting a disease, a fear of hospitals or refers to excessive preoccupancy or worry about having a serious illness ” are most likely to be affected by truth of having a serious ill or undergoing a dangerous medical operation. That’s why some doctors use lying as way of curing; they don’t try only to heal the disease, but also they make sure that the patient is in his most relaxed state, in order not to harm him. Roger Higgs in his article “On telling patients the truth” argues that doctors have no exemption from telling the truth. I other words, when a doctor lies he needs to give justifications. For the maleficence argument, Higgs argues that the truth actually does not harm; but the way the doctor tells the truth a...
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.
The purpose f this paper is to answer the following question- where does patient autonomy leave off and professional expertise begin in the practice of medicine? Also, a brief personal analysis about the differences between doctors encouraging patients to question their judgment and doctors who believe that such deference is “pandering.”
The most common areas of clinical practice where truth-telling and deception become an ethical dilemma are critical care, cancer and palliative care, mental health and general nursing practice (Tuckett, 2004). Other areas where it can raise potential ethical concerns are in placebo therapy, disclosure of human immunodeficiency virus and informed consent (Tuckett, 2004). Truth-telling is also an act of exchanging moral agents (patients, relatives, nurses) with their sets of values and norms, which in turn are derived from culture, personal and religious beliefs, and traditions (Dossa, 2010). For this reason, the issue of truth-telling is not only approached differently in the various clinical settings but also in different countries, cultures and religions (Kazdaglis et al., 2010). For example, in the United States of America (USA), England, Canada and Finland, the majority of patients are told of their diagnosis (Kazdaglis et al., 2010). Conversely, in Japan, family members play a major role in the decision of ...
Patient confidentiality is one of the foundations of the medical practice. Patients arrive at hospitals seeking treatment believing that all personal information will remain between themselves and the medical staff. In order to assure patients privacy, confidentiality policies were established. However, a confidentiality policy may be broken only in the case the medical staff believes that the patient is a danger to themselves or to others in society. Thesis Statement: The ethics underlying patient confidentiality is periodically questioned in our society due to circumstances that abruptly occur, leaving health professionals to decide between right and wrong.
Consequently, it can be assumed that doctors might tend to avoid such a confession in order to maintain their image of being a “good doctor” (J.Shahidi). Not being a good doctor may eventually lead to doctor’s loss of business and as a result physicians may tend to hide the truth even if it opposes patient autonomy