“On Telling patient the truth” by Roger Higgs
Summary of the article
In this article, Higgs explores physicians’ practice of withholding information from patients. He examines the dilemma that physician face when it comes to information delivery to patients under different circumstance. The article points out that physicians are justified under some time not to tell the truth if telling that reality is likely to cause harm to the patient. For instance, telling a patient that he has been diagnosed with incurable cancer and that he is going to die very soon might affect his spirit to fight. The principles beneficence – physician actions that benefit the patient is exemplified. Some of the justification is based on the principle of non-maleficence, which dictates that physician should cause no harm to the patient. The big challenge arises when it comes to promoting the autonomy principle in which the patient has the right to decide on the kind of treatment and information they needed. This prompts the physicians to tell the patients the truth if even they think giving that information might cause harm to the patient. Higgs cites a survey that shows that patients demo be told the truth is, therefore, implies that doctors must respect patients’ wishes. The argument here is that, when physicians withhold information from patients, patients run the risk of making decisions without truthful knowledge of medical intervention available. Higgs further notes that there is a general feeling among physicians and healthcare professionals that it is permissible to lie. However, the lying must be backed up with a substantial justification. He raises a concern regarding physicians making decisions concerning what is in their patients. He says that most of us deny such sort of medical paternalism.
Critical evaluation of the article and Author’s position
The Author’s view on telling patients the truth is based on four arguments. These arguments include the evidence from uncertainty, the argument from beneficence, the argument from non-maleficence and autonomy. Based on the uncertainty dimension, doctors can tell the truth if they understand what the truth is. In most circumstances, however, physicians do not know what the truth and therefore, they fail to tell the patients the trust. Higgs maintains that this argument is wrong since it is confusing to think that we cannot be honest if we do not know the truth. However, telling the truth demands that we do not mislead. Therefore, a doctor who does not know the exact truth should be honest admit that he does not know.
Based on beneficence, doctors need to do that which will promote or preserve the happiness of their patients. It, therefore, implies that lying enhances patients’ satisfaction. Higgs does not support this argument. He thinks that promotion or preservation of happiness does not justify happiness. He believes that no professional would take on the duty of suppressing information to promote happiness. However, the general rationale behind this argument is the principle of beneficence which requires physicians to do what is in their patients’ best interest. The convention here is that at times it is in patients’ interest, not knowing the truth.
The principle of non-maleficence requires that doctors should not cause harm. Telling the truth sometimes causes harm to patients. The author does not challenge this argument. Also, he does not deny that exposing the sometimes causes harm. Instead, he suggests that this phenomenon is due to blunt and unfeeling communication. Higgs tends to think that the principle of autonomy carries a higher weight. The principle requires physicians to respect patients’ beliefs and values and their capacity to make decisions based on those values and beliefs.