Summary: The Biomedical Ethical Dilemma

A consistent biomedical ethics dilemma is the question of whether or not it is ever morally justifiable for a doctor to lie to a patient. There is a broad range of cases to which this question can be applied. At one end, there are situations in which the issue is so trivial there is no need for discussion; for example, telling a patient their request will be “no problem” although it may be quite time consuming and work intensive. At the other end are emergency cases in which telling the truth could lead to the patient’s death; for example, a patient’s arm has been severed in a car accident. The patient asks, “Is my arm gone?” Lying to the patient in this case would be justified given if the patient was told his/her arm was missing, panic would
A patient has the right to know all the facts, figures, percentages, treatment options, etc. about his/her given illness. A medical professional’s job is to supply their patients with everything they need to make sound decisions no matter how devastating the information may be. When important information concerning the health of a patient is withheld, the best conclusion for the given situation cannot be reached. No one wants to hear that they only have months to live; however, if this crucial information was deprived or even made easier to receive, the patient would not have the ability to choose a course of treatment that would allow them the best possible outcome. The best interest of the patient would not be taken into full
Marcia Angell argues confidentiality should be respected if the information being withheld could have no substantial impact on a third party; however, if the information poses a major threat, confidentiality is overridden (119). The line where confidentiality is overridden is quite blurry and should be drawn based on the situation at hand. The threat of danger must be at a significant level for the doctor to feel the need to break confidentiality, for example, a third parties’ life may depend on sharing the information. This is true for many psychiatric cases. A patient may admit to wanting to cause physical harm or even death to a third party. This would seem to be a very legitimate reason to breach patient confidentiality; however, the doctor should know the patient well enough to determine whether or not this could be a serious threat by evaluating information gathered through previous sessions. Proper evaluation of the patient is a necessity in determining whether or not the information revealed during a session is legitimate and should be shared with a third party. A patient may admit to wanting to harm another person, but this is often only a means of venting due to anger or stress. After further evaluation, if a patient’s threat is legitimate, the life of another person outweighs that of confidentiality and the