The Dynamics of Ethics - Should a Patient Be Told the Truth - Essay Example

The Dynamics of Ethics – Should a patient be told the truth? Linda Lewis of Phoenix Online Delores Martinez December 9, 2006 The Dynamics of Ethics – Should a patient be told the truth? The previous situation Ethical science has always found it difficult to decide, about the acceptable extent to which the information can be provided to the patient. Basically, if one would put oneself in he shoes of the patient, then one would like to receive every bit of information pertaining to the medical condition. However, when one looks at the issue from the perspective of the clinician, then one can consider the need for withholding some information from the client, for the benefit of the patient of course. Where does the line of ethics come here, and from where the influence of science starts, is the focus of this essay. There are two sides to this issue: while one believes that the client should be a party to all available data, the other group is in favor of professional secrecy, which is mandatory to the cause of the treatment. What follows is an inquiry into issues which are imperative to the cause of telling the truth to patients; both sides are represented therein, and the most plausible option is debated over. Subsequently, a few relevant areas are discussed hereunder, which are deemed important for the judicious evaluation of the issue. The changes that are taking place It is purported that by telling the truth, one would be able to present a scenario that is non-malicious. Lies and withholding of truth have basically been taken as sinful over the years spanning human civilization. So it would go without saying, that if somebody is telling the truth to the patients, then an act of virtue is being upheld. “The purpose of truth telling is not simply to enable patients to make informed choices about health care and other aspects of their lives but also to inform them about their situation. Truth telling fosters trust in the medical profession and rests on the respect owed to patients as persons” (Glass, et al, 1997). Conversely, it is also believed that the actual care would be actualized when the patient finds his cure. Subsequently, if the health care provider feels that there is something that the patient would be well off without knowing, then they should not disclose that information. “The best time to discuss life-altering and life-threatening disease is when patients can remember the conversation, understand its significance, and participate in health care decisions” (Chodosh, 2000). The ethical grounds may seem to be coming under strife here, but even still, the stance for the cure of the patient is overriding to other facts in the health care profession. For that, ends may well be justifying means. Why the changes are taking place All this has shaped up because it is felt that when people are not told their due share, then their respect is being jeopardized. Regard for a human being requires, that of there is any information that is directly concerned to him/her, than it should be instantly passed on, so that they can be mentally prepared to deal with the situation. However, the other school of thought purports that providing all the information would actually be impertinent for the patient. More so in the case of children, they cannot be entrusted with the information related to medical concerns about them. They simply have not developed the cognitive abilities that would allow them to handle the burden of the information given to them. When one has to lie to a patient, the argument is given that it is actually concealment of the truth. The fact is perhaps true when viewed in an objective manner. The health care provider possibly does know best when and what is necessary for the patient. If one has given his lives in the hand of the [person, why not a little bit of information as well? Desired outcomes/future situation The essence lies in the fact that the patient is not really geared up to receive all the information accessible – he needs time to resolve. This is also an integral constituent of psychotherapy sittings, wherein gradually and slowly, the client is introduced to the actual stressor, only after the therapist is positive that the person is emotionally capable for handling the circumstances. Whatever may seem obligatory for the health-care provider, the most important thing for him/her is to heal the patient. Subsequently, if he feels that there should be something pending for the cause of the treatment, then the same protocol should be followed. In essence, telling the truth is considered as a moral obligation in almost all cultures and theologies around the world. It is taken as a compulsory act of beneficence, without which the reliability of the health-care provider is lost, and essentially the entire process of health care suffers an emotional blow. The act of kindness is hence lost, and there surfaces a profound feeling of betrayal and anguish on part of the patient. However, many patients around the world do not have the technical expertise to understand and analyze the information provided to them. To add, a patient goes through several ups and downs during the treatment process, in which it may not be advisable to him under greater pressure. My opinion about the issue In light of the aforementioned factors, it is considered important that the right to disclose information should rest with the health-care provider. After all, if the patient has entrusted his life in the hands of those specialists, then might as well they should entrust their faith in them as well. There is not every fact which the patient can understand or assimilate. Especially when considering children and mentally ill patients, hard-core reality can have even more ill-effects for the patient. While telling the patient something wrong may well be uncalled for, but withholding a fact can be taken as something of a less significant potency. The eternal truth remains, that the patient is concerned about his health, whatever the course of attaining it might be followed. The end product should not negotiate on what is being given to the patient. Yes, the patient is permitted to know the truth; but even before that, he is entitled to health. The choice seems much too obvious! References Chodosh, J. (2000). The treacherous path of truth-telling with demented patients. Western Journal of Medicine. November; 173(5): 323–324. Glass, K. et al. (1997). Bioethics for clinicians: 7. Truth telling. Canadian Medical Association Journal. January 15; 156(2): 225–228. Read More