The doctor′s dilemma: Truth telling

Abstract

Byline: G. Swaminath Truth, Whole Truth, And Nothing But That ? Even as we glory in being in the age of right to information, I am occasionally reminded of a story I read during my school days, The doctor's word by Narayan.[sup] [1] It narrates the dilemma of a doctor who diagnoses his friend, who totally trusts him, to be critically ill. doctor realizes that his friend has a good chance of recovery if he does not deteriorate over the night. ethical dilemma relates to whether the doctor should inform the patient of his criticality and lessen hope or deliberately mislead him, and improve chances of survival by instilling hope. patient has expressed his desire to write a will, should his survival be improbable. Thanks to the decision taken by the doctor to deceive, the patient finds hope and survives. doctor fulfils his Hippocratic Oath, reducing patient harm by not revealing upsetting conditions. Trust is belief that someone is honest and will not cause harm, and it is with this conviction that patients confide in doctors and seek advice.[sup] [2] A treatment is more likely to work (placebo effect) if there is faith in the doctor and the prescribed medication, hence is important for the patient's wellbeing. In the long running MORI annual poll,[sup] [3] the British public have voted for doctors as the most trusted professionals, as well as being the most likely to tell the truth. Despite this there is consistent evidence that patients do not always follow doctors' advice, and do not tell doctors when they are not doing so.[sup] [2] This reflects a critical trust where is rarely given unconditionally allowing the lingering of at least faint skepticism. Generally, children are taught to tell the truth absolutely and to avoid lies. Doctors who condemn lying may sometimes misrepresent the patient's condition without actually telling a lie.[sup] [4] They may withhold information about the patient's condition or proposed interventions, or give partial information which is literally true, yet deceptive. This is more common with illness which has stigmatizing diagnosis or poor prognosis. Access to truth is a right (because respect demands it), a utility (to enable making of informed judgments) and a kindness (as lies poison relationships, resulting in withdrawal from constructive liaisons).[sup] [5] Truth could be sabotaged by different ways. For example, while advising a psychotic person about clozapine and its adverse effects, the doctor might take one of these positions with varying forms and degrees of untruthfulness: [sup] [4] *Claim no dangerous side effects (lying). *Emphasize the absence of extrapyramidal symptoms, talk about and suggest blood tests required but not clarify why, use technical jargon, omit important qualifying information, present statistics in a misleading way (deception). *Warn vaguely of agranulocytosis, suggest blood tests claiming it is simple and routine, downgrade probabilities of risk or gravity, not clarify if patient has understood or not (misrepresentation). *Offer no information on side effects till the patient explicitly asks (nondisclosure). withholding the truth by physicians is a form of medical paternalism and is adopted to protect the patient from physical/emotional harm. This paternalism assists generate an optimism which transcends the immediate crisis and promotes decision making. It seems that false optimism about recovery and the absence of side effects (in this case the drug) is the result of an association between doctors' activism and patients' adherence to the recovery plot.[sup] [6] This allows both to not acknowledge explicitly what they should know and can know,[sup] [6] and play out a show orchestrated by the doctor. …