In these next few paragraphs, I will attempt to give an accurate depiction of passive deception, focusing on how it applies to the field of healthcare, and its problems. Passive deception, in essence, is the act of withholding information from another person to whom it concerns or could concern. In his essay, “Sexual Morality and the Concept of Using Another Person,” Mappes simplifies passive deception to “the simple withholding of information” (173). The counterpart to this, is active deception, which occurs when a deceiver lies outrightly. The key difference between these two is the action, or lack thereof, of the deceiver.
Something that complicates the concept of passive deception is what I call the question of importance. Passive deceit does not exist in every occasion in which information is withheld, but something is withheld in every instance of passive deception. So, what determines whether or not the withholding of information is sufficient enough to also qualify as deception? I contend that the two qualities, which I call determinants of deception, that separate deception from simple withholding are importance and likelihood, the latter is only necessary in situations with a certain level of doubt or during
…show more content…
speculation of the future. If something is important to someone, it would be deceptive for another to withhold information about that which is important. To use an example from the healthcare sector, if blood pressure is important to a patient, it is the doctor’s responsibility to inform the patient of their blood pressure. On the same note, if that patient has a high probability of getting high blood pressure in the future, then the doctor must inform the patient due to likelihood. I will now explain a scenario that we will break down and critically analyze in the next paragraph. Jack is a football player for his local high school. Last week, while playing a game, Jack was hit and was later diagnosed with a concussion. Now, a week later, Jack is having trouble remembering things such as what classes he is taking or who his friends are. Jack is taken to the doctor where the doctor tests for a cancerous tumor in Jack’s head, despite the fact that the doctor thinks it is just a symptom of the concussion. He does this without informing Jack, instead he dismisses it as “ some additional checks.” There are two main problems with these determinants of deception which I will show by using Jack’s case. The first problem is that all parties involved in the interaction must know everything that is important to one another. For instance, if Jack were worried about a cancerous tumor, then the doctor was required to inform Jack of the test. However, the doctor was unaware of how important Jack thought cancer was. This would, in turn, make the doctor’s innocent omission of information into a case of passive deceit. Secondly, a definite point would have to be established to determine at what likelihood it would be necessary for someone to reveal information. At what percentage of likelihood should the doctor have informed Jack of the results that he was attempting to glean from the test, 10%, 15%, 80%? As it presently stands, there is no answer to this question. Nevertheless, it poses a problem because everyone has a varying view of what constitutes a percentage worth heeding. Overall, passive deception is a big problem, especially in health care.
In this field there really are matters of life and death, which could be affected by deceit. Passive deception is mainly a problem because there is currently no way to determine whether the omission is an innocent or deceitful one. Furthermore, the determinants of deception which I presented have a great many flaws. These include the question of importance, which varies from person to person, and the question of what percentage of likelihood is substantial enough to require information to be given. Without the proper ways of classifying passive deception it will continue to pose problems in the healthcare field, in daily interactions, and in the other sectors of
life.
In the article “Is Lying Bad for Us”, Richard Gunderman persuades his readers the effect of lying can have on our daily lives. He expresses strong opinions towards being honest and how lying has negative consequences on not only our mental health but
But one may wonder when DPB is necessary and what the benefits of such practice are. Cullen and Klein state that “this deception-to-benefit-the-patient view has a prima facie (at first glance) appeal,” although some may argue that this line of thinking has not yet been proven with positive results. One illustration to this theory is when a doctor tells a kidney transplant recipient that he is doing good and that the prognosis looks promising with the justification that the patient, although the kidney is not functioning at all, but after hearing the positive feedback from the physician, it may lift his spirit and regain full health. The physicians with this type of ideology presume that “a sick person isn’t made better by gloomy assessments.” This type of DBP is intended to be used in order to benefit the patient, however, there are no proven cases to confirm that this method works, and it’s merely intended as an effort for the physicians to make the patient feel better, furthermore, as stated by Cullen and Klein “In all but rarest cases, deceiving a patient ‘for his own good’ is an unacceptable way for a physician to try to help her patient.” (Cullen & Klein
As John Ruskin once said, “The essence of lying is in deception, not in words.” This essence is debated in “The Ways We Lie”, written by Stephanie Ericsson, and “Doubts about Doublespeak”, written by William Lutz. In “The Ways We Lie”, Ericsson talks about the different ways people lie on a day to day basis. By comparison, in “Doubts about Doublespeak”, Lutz discusses the different forms of doublespeak that many individuals frequently use. Lutz considers doublespeak as a language that distorts the meaning of words in order to deceive another person, and only “pretends to communicate” (83). Although both authors agree that lying is about the use of deceptive language, Ericsson describes this use of language as occasionally being necessary,
One of the last types of ways investigators are coached to detect deception is in the behavioral attitudes of a person being interviewed such as being unconcerned or over anxious (Kassin, 2005). The success rate of looking for these cues are very successful in telling if an individual is being deceitful and has surpassed any laboratory tests conducted on the subject. The laboratory test however did reveal some interesting facts. The research showed that people who had training and experience did not score better than the control group who received no training. In fact all individuals scored at the chance level with the people who had training scored just above chance or at the chance level. To check if special training in the detection of deception was more accurate a study ...
In “The Ways We Lie”, Ericsson describes the different types of lies: white lie, facades, ignoring
Lying is an issue that has been debated on for a long time. Some people believe that lying is sometimes ok in certain circumstances. Some people believe lying is always acceptable. In contrast, some believe lying is always bad. Keeping all other’s opinions in mind, I believe that lying is a deficient way of solving problems and is a bad thing. I claim that only certain situations allow the usage of lies and that otherwise, lying is bad. Dishonesty is bad because it makes it harder to serve justice, harms the liar individually, and messes up records. Furthermore, it should only be said to protect someone from grave danger.
In “The Ways We Lie” by Stephanie Ericsson, the author uses her knowledge to talk about the different ways of lies and how those lies affect the liar, as well as the people who had been told lies. According to the author’s essay, there are 10 types of lies that people encounter every single day: the White Lie, Facades, Ignoring the Plain Facts, Deflecting, Omission, Stereotypes and Cliches, Groupthink, Out-and-Out Lies, Dismissal, and Delusion. Throughout the essay, it is connoted that people are lying in various ways even though they are not intended to. I had been taught that lying is a bad habit. According to Ericsson, there are many types of lie and I did three of them in my life: the White Lie, Omission, and Out-and-Out Lies; however, I can defend my lies for good purposes.
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).
Lying is simply an act of not telling the truth, and this definition of lying will be used in future sections of this paper. There are three groups of lies t...
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.
John Ruskin once said, “The essence of lying is in deception, not in words”. With regards to what Ruskin talks about, deception is an act that Americans have lovingly embraced. It has been so embraced that we don 't even know if we are deceiving or being deceived. Stephanie Ericsson’s essay, “The Ways We Lie”, claims that “our acceptance of lies becomes a cultural cancer that eventually shrouds and reorders reality until moral garbage becomes as invisible as water is to fish” (343). In a sense, the relation between Ruskin’s quote and Ericsson’s claim is they both describe the current state of the American culture. The modern American culture is full of deceit and lies whether it’s to protect someone or hide a secret. And yet, we still accept
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...
People face ethical dilemmas every day. But it is perhaps, most prevalent in the law enforcement profession. Law enforcement officers face ethical dilemmas constantly. Some of the ethical issues that police face each day are: racial profiling, officer discretion, police officer loyalty, police officer abuse, and interrogatory deception. This paper will discuss the purpose of interrogatory deception, ways in which it is used, some of the current debates over the practice, and a landmark ruling in the Miranda case of 1966 which attempted to cease the use of intimidation and coercion practices of the police.
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.
A story has numerous important effects in our daily lives. It has been one of the most effective source of inspiration know to man. In this I would like to tell you about the something which was taught to me in childhood. “Behavior” the word defined as “a person who was well treated to represents themselves to others. This thing is generally comes from our family; the one quote was I always remember “Telling a lie and boast may end up in trouble”. When I tell lie to someone this quote comes into my mind. I can still remember when I was six year old and whenever I had made any mischief by saying a lie to family, my grandmother used to tell this story in brief.