Introduction
In a medical setting, lying means deliberate misinformation. It is more than just missing data; it includes active misrepresentation or withholding of information by healthcare professionals in patient interactions.[1] It is essential to understand the subtleties of this term to investigate questions about truth-telling from an ethical point of view.
The case under consideration argues that although lying to patients is indisputably unethical, there may be legitimate cases of misleading them for their good. The ethical conflict lies in the delicate balance between revealing what the patient needs to know and doing something for his good. The importance lies in achieving the necessary balance between respecting patient autonomy, for which openness is often essential, and a medical professional’s duty to protect patients’ overall well-being, sometimes requiring such priority as may require a healthcare practitioner to be more truthful.
This essay will examine the ethical dilemma through basic medical ethics principles, arguments against lying, justifications for partial truths, and real-world case studies. It is also presented from different angles via various systems of moral thinking. This article will offer a complete presentation of all sides to these complexities in truth and falsehood regarding medical treatment.
The Ethical Dilemma
Basic Concepts of Medical Ethics
Autonomy
An important principle of medical ethics is patient autonomy. People should have the right to decide on their healthcare. However, this ethical principle goes beyond mere acknowledgement; it is the patient’s right to get a full explanation of their medical condition and prognosis and appreciate all therapies available.[2] For the foundation of autonomy, healthcare professionals need to believe that patients can best decide what is in their interests when they possess facts and information accessible from distortion and with confidence that it will be respected. This deters helping patients engage in informed decision-making, which fits the general concept of promoting patient-driven care and active involvement. Another foundation of autonomy involves allowing patients to make personal decisions without being controlled by internal states or external forces that rob one of the ability to self-direct.[3] An external influence, for instance, is when a patient with an incurable asks their doctor, “Please tell me that it’s not that serious?” The doctor replies, “Don’t worry, it’s nothing that medicine can’t fix.” Here, the doctor has lied to his patient and taken away the principle of respect for autonomy, thus denying the patient the necessary information they need to determine what action to bring about their incurable condition.
Beneficence
A key concept in medical ethics, beneficence, means that members of the healthcare profession have an unavoidable obligation to place patients’ interests before their own. Beauchamp and Childress explain that beneficence forces healthcare professionals to act in a way that benefits their patients.[4] Subsumed under the broader principle of promoting a good outcome, beneficence goes beyond non-maleficence: It calls for taking positive measures that promote health. Regarding truth-telling, beneficence says transparency is a vital tool for patients. Based on complete and truthful information about one’s medical condition, prognosis, and treatment choices provided by health professionals, one can make decisions that are in accord with their personal goals in health. This ethical norm reflects the set of many-sided relations subsumed within it, between respect for patient autonomy and an active concern to improve their welfare based on open communication; these form part of building a humanistic atmosphere in healthcare.
Non-maleficence
The duty to avoid harm is a primary principle of medical ethics.[5] Non-maleficence dictates that the interests and well-being of patients should always take priority over those who provide healthcare. This principle is also why communications should be honest and open to prevent possible injury caused by misinformation or deceit. Thus, transparency is not just a moral obligation to avoid harm; it also protects the trust between patients and healthcare providers. According to Benn, trust is critical to drive a doctor-patient relationship.[6] Straying from truth-telling threatens the principal tenet of non-maleficence and may endanger therapeutic relationships, adversely affecting all care aspects and undermining the trust between patients and their doctors. Upholding the principle of non-maleficence through honest communication, healthcare professionals work toward a safe, patient-centred approach that builds trust.
Justice
Medical ethics is grounded in justice. Equal access to information and the fair distribution of healthcare resources are necessities. It goes beyond simple distribution by advocating public, open communication as a necessary condition for the equal treatment of persons and to prevent discrimination within healthcare contexts. Maintaining the rule of law means recognizing that fraudulent activities can lead to enormous injustices and imbalances, including huge disparities in treatment. This multipronged principle requires resource distribution according to need and demands the destruction of informational obstacles that may stand between equals and medical knowledge. With transparency and impartiality as the founding principles, the banner of justice becomes a pillar in an ethics framework. This health system cares for all citizens regardless of their social or individual differences.
The Tension Between Truth-Telling and Patient Autonomy
Unsurprisingly, this intricate interplay between truth-telling and patient autonomy in medical ethics should unfold like a delicate dance. Often, there is too little distance or breathing space involved. Though the basis of autonomy depends on supplying people with complete information suitable for decision-making, complications arise when speaking frankly often causes discomfort or worry patients to such an extent that their will is impaired.[7] For instance, in the case of a patient with dementia who experiences hallucinations that, in their opinion, help them get by, like seeing angels or seeing relatives who died a long time ago, telling the dementia patients that the people they are talking to are not real may make the patient spiral, which will highly affect their health. This happens mainly because telling them the truth distorts what they believe is their reality, and in most cases, healthcare providers are required to play along with such patients and not disclose the truth.[8] The challenge is further magnified in the moral field when patients expressly state that they wish to remain uninformed about certain parts of their medical condition, like in the case of a dementia patient who wants their hallucinations to stay accurate. It substantiates the ethical dilemma as healthcare professionals struggle to maintain autonomy while adhering to beneficence and non-maleficence at the same time.
It is a delicate balancing act in these situations. It involves careful consideration of the possible emotional and psychological damage that radical disclosure may cause patients. If respecting autonomy implies transparency and honesty, healthcare providers’ dilemma deepens as they consider the potential harm caused by unfiltered information. This balance is challenging to strike when disclosing some items might not add much value in terms of enabling meaningful participation by patients but could have a significant effect on their emotional state.
Furthermore, this ethical dilemma is more acute when patients say they do not want to know certain things about their condition. This navigation means respecting the patient’s decision to accept or refuse what information he wishes and considering the possible effects that choice might have on his life.
In substance, the clash between truth and patient power epitomizes a vexing ethical dilemma, as healthcare professionals must walk an exceedingly fine line: telling all may hurt more than it helps. The moral responsibility is not limited to disclosure but requires understanding each patient’s situation and values and considering their circumstances. Joint decision-making by doctors and patients must respect the principle of autonomy while protecting the well-being of both psychologically and physically, which it may have on society.[9]
Scenarios that demonstrate the ethical dilemma
Limited Prognosis
A graphic imaginary scene reveals movingly the ethical dilemma posed by limited prognosis: A patient is undergoing tests for a condition with a very poor outlook. The medical team is at a crossroads when faced with the conflict between autonomy and beneficence. Respecting the patient’s autonomy means making communication more open about this cruel reality and leaving it to them whether they want another test. However, the challenge comes when patients would rather not have the diagnosis and prognosis of their terminal illness disclosed to them.[10] For instance, in some Asian cultures, families believe that revealing the prognosis and diagnosis of a terminal illness to a patient makes them wither away faster than they would if they did not know that they have limited time to live.
On the other hand, beneficence advises the medical team that one possible emotional burden of uncensored information is making it impossible for patients to understand something clearly at the end. This ethical tension is at the heart of healthcare providers ‘sophisticated decision-making. Balancing the obligation to respect autonomy with the duty of promoting patient welfare demands a delicate calculation of potential good against that which may either foster or diminish truth. The difficulty lies in creating an atmosphere that respects the patient’s right to know without being insensitive to their emotional and psychological condition.
Sensitive Information
Another example of an ethical dilemma is when a patient fighting a severe mental health problem refuses full disclosure, demanding only partial information about what he suffers from. It becomes a complex ethical dilemma for healthcare professionals who must tread the thin line between respecting the patient’s autonomy and pursuing principles of beneficence- do good- and non-maleficence, to not harm. It implies respecting the patient’s independence, but beneficence and non-maleficence mean protecting their competent choices. According to Beauchamp and Chidress,[11] doctors are bound to the need to fulfil the patient’s preferences when disclosing sensitive information, even if that means telling a lie.
This ethical dilemma reminds us that this is a special breed of patient and requires a tailored approach to patient communication. Therefore, healthcare workers not only need to walk the thin red line of patient empowerment but also have an obligation not to judge patients on others ‘opinions.
Treatment Options
Especially where patients are faced with a wide variety of treatment options, each variation differing to some degree in its rate of efficacy and potential side effects, the ethical problem posed by disclosure is raised even further. The complicated aspect of this task lies in not bombarding the patient to a point where it paralyzes their judgment while still giving enough information so that they can make choices and presenting a possibility for the patient to refuse all the treatment options disclosed with the idea that more options should be sought out.[12] Ensuring the right balance between truth-telling and a patient’s ability to understand things becomes an amalgam of ethical challenges.
Herein lies the ambiguity of ethical decision-making in healthcare, highlighting the importance of personalized approaches. Participation in care requires open communication and transparency. Patients must receive the information that makes participation meaningful, while healthcare providers must negotiate complex treatment choices empathetically.
In such cases, the ethical dilemma arises when healthcare professionals must balance off against each other’s principles of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. They ask: When? How much? And in what manner should information be shared with patients? The various facets of individual cases point to the need for refined, reasonable ethics by which doctors can make choices in their practice. Herein lies the ambiguity of ethical decision-making in healthcare, highlighting the importance of personalized approaches. Participation in care requires open communication and transparency. Patients must receive the information that makes participation meaningful, while healthcare providers must negotiate complex treatment choices empathetically.
Arguments Against Lying
The Doctor-Patient Relationship Must Be Based on Trust Between Participants
The doctor-patient relationship is a holy bond, with trust at the very heart. Trust is the bedrock of medicine, spanning every detail from medical decisions to adhering to a treatment schedule.[13] The fundamental principle of telling the truth is establishing trust between doctors and patients.[14] From routine check-ups to critical diagnoses, trust is the coin of the realm in every medical encounter, allowing patients and practitioners to take an active role.
Patients expect healthcare professionals to act as responsible people and provide accurate, honest information concerning their well-being. This is not a one-sided trust–it must be reciprocal because healthcare providers also rely on patients to provide basic information for quality care. Taking account of the enormous asymmetry in medical knowledge, patients are effectively rendered extremely weak by their ignorance. As a result, it becomes even more precious an asset for them to be able to trust their healthcare providers.
Such informed decision-making requires a transparent and truthful doctor-patient relationship. The information patients receive about their medical condition, prognosis, and available courses of treatment must be reliable. As soon as deception begins, even though it is carried out for the patient’s sake, a poison which threatens to eat away at trust from within is inserted into this relationship.
The consequences of a broken trust are significant. People may hesitate to give essential information, making accurate diagnoses difficult. If patients question the truthfulness of their doctors ‘recommendations, it may hamper treatment plans. In addition, a lack of trust may result in reduced patient autonomy. People feel disenfranchised and powerless to participate actively in decisions about their health care.
Caring for patients means maintaining a trusting doctor-patient relationship; healthcare providers must understand that trust is not just one deal but an ongoing process. Communication must be consistent, information sharing honest, and the desire to help patients out of trouble sincere. With trust, patients have the confidence to express their doubts, ask questions of others, and participate in decision-making with providers on an equal footing. This is patient-centered care at its best.
The Damage Done by Untruthfulness
As such, untruthfulness on a doctor’s part carries severe legal and professional consequences. Hence, to stray from medical ethics is not taken lightly in either fact or law.
Legal Consequences
In medicine, truth is not just a moral issue but the law, too. A patient’s right to correct, truthful information about their health status, diagnoses, and treatment options is a fundamental human right.[15] A deliberate deception can have grave legal consequences for healthcare professionals. The most significant legal threat to all concerned is that patients sometimes start lawsuits against medical providers alleging malpractice, which can be defined as either wrongdoing or deception.
Moreover, if the healthcare professional fails to provide accurate information, they can be charged with breach of contract, which is a direct consequence of not telling the truth.[16] This is especially true when a formal agreement exists between the patient and the health provider. Deception charges are also possible if intentional fraud causes financial or mental harm.
Financial considerations aside, there are also legal consequences. They, too, can influence the reputation and standing of a healthcare professional within the community. Medical advances can move quickly, while lawsuits are drawn out and complicated to win more reason for medical practice to be based on truthfulness.
Professional Consequences
Honesty, integrity and transparency, in addition to hard work, the healthcare profession also stresses ethical conduct. Those violating these rules face severe career penalties. Professional organizations and licensing boards set and maintain ethical standards in healthcare. Health professionals must adhere to these standards throughout their careers.
Violations of these ethical standards will meet various degrees of disciplinary punishment. Typical responses to minor transgressions include reprimands, warnings, and fines. However, more severe violations of truth and fairness can lead to loss or suspension of professional license. For instance, when the act of omission or lying on the doctor’s part causes primary harm or injury to the patient, the doctor can face the “legal notion of proximate causation.”[17] Therefore, apart from significantly impacting an individual’s career in medicine, loss of licensure also has the effect of discouraging others.
High trust is expected of health professionals, and all dishonesty matters. Upholding professional integrity is not just a matter of law; it also helps maintain public confidence in the medical profession.
Erosion of Professional Reputation
In the age of transparency, where patients are increasingly informed and empowered, violations involving dishonesty in medical care may profoundly shake a healthcare professional’s reputation. Untruthfulness not only damages individual credibility, but it is also dangerous in exposing the public to disgrace. In an information-rich, connected world where everything is on the edge of a hot stove, any bad news about your dishonest conduct will undoubtedly become known to all social circles and certainly scare off patients. Besides seriously impairing the status and self-esteem of a healthcare professional, this loss of stature can also become an obstacle to career advancement or compromise his general image in society.
Arguments for Their Interest
Cases With Partial Truths
It is a thorny ethical terrain, and health professionals sometimes must withhold partial truths or deliver strategic omissions. Though well-intentioned, these examples highlight the fine line between honesty and true medical benefit.
Another example is the case of predictive uncertainty. When prognoses are unclear, or the medical team has no definitive information, healthcare providers may be reluctant to discuss speculative elements of a case and often only share confirmed facts.[18] However, this strategy is geared to putting the patient at ease. How far should transparency extend for accurate, informed decision-making? Finding a good balance, the patients may question the quality of information available to them and their choices are thus influenced.
Even more prevalent is the purposeful underplaying of possible side effects from treatment. ART healthcare professionals strongly desire to avoid patient pain and may exaggerate the proportion of positive outcomes while minimizing its probability and severity. This selective presentation protects patients from unnecessary anxiety but raises ethical dilemmas about the concept of informed consent. Patients who ought to be able to receive a thorough explanation of the possible dangers involved in any intervention may end up choosing without having fully realized all that is at stake.
However, in the case of sub-acute and terminal illnesses, clinicians may have to take a more encouraging approach, offering some hope for recovery while avoiding highlighting an inevitable condition or one’s potential destination. This approach, grounded in compassion and the cultivation of hope, raises ethical issues surrounding patient autonomy, mainly how much information should be provided so that he can decide for himself. Interventions that soften the emotional impact pose a challenge to autonomy. Because patients may not be given opportunities to make fully informed choices about their care, such efforts may bring harm rather than benefit in some cases.
This kind of partial truth in healthcare highlights the complicated ethical questions practitioners face. It is difficult to balance protecting patients against distress and their right to complete information. Given these changes in the medical world, discussions and reflection on ethical considerations by health professionals are needed to ensure that guidelines that balance patient well-being with autonomy will be put forward. Cultivating this patient-centred approach must strike a more delicate balance between truth and goodwill, balancing evolving ethical standards with society’s continually changing healthcare expectations.
Psychological and emotional influence on patients
Trust and Betrayal
People with illnesses put immense faith in their builders of bodies. They see them as guides and comforters. If partial truths or omissions are exposed, this trust can be broken.[19] Betrayal exacerbates existing diseases and can also hinder the therapeutic alliance between patient and provider.
Anxiety and Stress
Not being told the truth about information can generate higher levels of anxiety and emotional stress.[20] Today, patients faced with a sense of uncertainty and loss of control may suffer even more significant emotional pain. The resulting stress can have physiological consequences, influencing the patient’s health.
Decision-Making Capacity
Deceptive practices compromise a patient’s decision-making ability. Incomplete information can easily result in decisions misaligned with the patient’s values or preferences because they are based on a misunderstanding (skewed perception) of their medical condition. This violates the principle of autonomy and underlines the fine line between protecting patients from themselves and respecting their right to self-determination.
Investigate Cultural and Environmental Factors That Affect Deceit In Healthcare
Cultural Variability
Truth-telling in healthcare is significantly influenced by cultural norms. In many cultures, it is accepted that sheltering patients from unpleasant truths is an act of caring. On the other hand, there are cultures for which full disclosure is necessary to protect autonomy and decision-making. These cultural distinctions are important when deciding whether deception is ever permissible.
Environmental Pressures
Pressures from the environment create pressures that affect how to deal with truth. The Expediency, time constraints, and high patient volumes may cause healthcare providers to resist using partial truths. These environmental factors must be overcome if healthcare providers successfully promote ethical practices.
Legal and Regulatory Context
The legal and regulatory environment regarding truth-telling varies worldwide. In some districts, explicit regulations require full disclosure, while others give healthcare professionals more leeway. These differences are among the reasons truthfulness in healthcare is ethically complex. The legal dimensions should be considered when evaluating deceptive practices.
Examples
Examples From Real Life of Deception in Use
Placebo Effect and Deceptive Treatments
Placebos or deceptive treatments may be used in some clinical trials and various medical interventions to test the comparative effectiveness of active treatment. Though the purpose is to observe reactions psychologically and physiologically, this practice raises ethical questions about informed consent and possible psychological impact on participants who believe they are receiving active treatment.[21]
Prognostic Disclosure in Terminal Illness
Clinicians may make selective disclosures or emphasize only certain aspects of a terminal illness prognosis to alleviate emotional distress and maintain hope.[22] On the other hand, this creates opportunities for ethical dilemmas about truth, informed choice, and potential implications for end-of-life planning.
Clinical Trial Recruitment
In the recruitment stage of clinical trials, researchers may only partially reveal the potential hazards or uncertainties because they want to attract participants. This practice is designed to help with trial recruitment but violates the principle of informed consent, as participants must fully realize what they are getting into.
Analysis of the results of each case and its moral basis
Placebo Effect and Deceptive Treatments
Results: The placebo effect, where individuals see improvements through psychological factors alone, can complicate evaluating a treatment’s efficacy. This approach helps science, but it raises ethical questions like how to balance raising medical knowledge and participants’ autonomy.
Moral Causes: The reason from an ethical point of view lies in pursuing scientific progress and understanding treatment effects. However, such an approach requires strict ethical supervision to reduce harm, ensure informed consent, and protect participants against possible psychological repercussions.
Prognostic Disclosure in Terminal Illness
Results: A more optimistic outlook may reduce the immediate distress of patients. Yet this approach may impact advanced care planning, undermine informed decisions, and leave patients (and their families) ill-prepared for the inevitable.
Moral Causes: The moral impulse springs from the desire to ease suffering and keep hope. But questions of David versus Goliath arise when one begins to think about long-term consequences and the conflict between beneficence and respect for autonomy.
Clinical Trial Recruitment
Results: Misleading recruitment can increase participation and promote progress in research. However, participants may need to be made aware that they are taking on risks higher than disclosed, which goes against the spirit of informed consent.
Moral Causes: Typical ethical reasoning focuses on the need for rich participant recruitment to promote scientific progress. However, the difficulty lies in reconciling scientific disclosure goals with respect for individual autonomy through informed communication.
Fine Points and Foggy Areas of Decision Processes
Placebo Effect and Deceptive Treatments
Subtleties: The distinction requires a more subtle assessment of the positive potential of scientific knowledge and an ethical imperative to protect its participants. The difficulty, however, lies in deciding acceptable levels of deception and offering safeguards to ensure that participants’ rights are not violated or psychological damage done.
Prognostic Disclosure in Terminal Illness
Subtleties: It is because emotional relief in the short-term and long-term consequences must be considered. When defining an acceptable level of optimism, whether hope is essential for patient well-being, and the delicate balance between beneficence (the obligation to do good) and autonomy leaves little room for doubt, ambiguities abound.
Clinical Trial Recruitment
Subtleties: Recruitment imperatives clash with the need for transparency, creating tension in attempts to balance scientific goals and ethical obligations. Defining appropriate levels of information disclosure, protecting the autonomy of study participants, and determining ethically acceptable limits in seeking medical knowledge are all ambiguities.
Ethical Frameworks and Theoretical Perspectives
Healthcare Professionals have a Practical Idea of Lying
In medical ethics, a practical perspective rates an act by its consequences. Its goal is to achieve the greatest good for most people. From this perspective, lying cannot be considered wrong if it produces favourable results, such as better patient health or fewer negative reactions.[23] To these healthcare professionals with a practical outlook, selective deception could be justified if it advances the larger goal of improving health outcomes.
Subtleties and Ambiguities
The hidden lies in defining “greatest good” and whether real benefits offset any harm from deception. But measuring the long-term impact of selective truth-telling is fraught with ambiguities–will it erode trust in the healthcare system and result in a curtailment of patient autonomy? However, the practical approach in medicine requires us to carefully consider the complexities involved when we weigh short-term gain against possible long-term ethical implications.
The deontological standpoint and the duty to truth
In contrast, deontology holds that certain things are right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. As far as medical ethics are concerned, deontology places a categorical imperative on telling the truth. The obligation is to be honest and transparent. Backers hold that healthcare professionals have a duty to truth, which derives from respecting patient autonomy.
Subtleties and Ambiguities
The nuances come in distinguishing between absolute duties and the ethically competing demands that arise in anything more complex than healthcare. In such cases where absolute truth-telling might harm individuals immediately, ambiguities appear and threaten to violate the strict requirements of deontological ethics. Negotiating the tricky balance between truthfulness and a duty to protect patients highlights the complexity of ethical decision-making within a deontological framework.
The medical professional character and virtue ethics
Virtue ethics, which examines individuals’ character and virtues, is a way to inspect health professionals’ moral performance. With this framework, virtues such as sincerity and compassion guide ethical behaviour. Medical virtue ethics focuses on developing a virtuous person and manifesting these moral qualities in one’s profession.[24]
Subtleties and Ambiguities
The subtleties are in recognizing that virtues must be balanced and vary with the circumstances. Such ambiguities arise in cases involving virtues such as compassion and benevolence that seemingly conflict with absolute truthfulness. Virtue ethics demands that healthcare providers decide how the interplay of various virtues and their possible trade-offs will affect what they should do in each case.
Synthesis of Perspectives
However, integrating these frameworks requires a delicate sense of how valuable considerations overlap with deontological obligations and virtue ethics in medical practice. The subtleties and ambiguities in each position highlight the difficulty of making such choices. Although ethical choice involves a delicate balance between the overarching principles and situational considerations, healthcare professionals must deal with these different frameworks.
Conclusion
The paper discusses the ethical aspects of truth-telling in healthcare, considering how universally people condemn lying on all sides and possible justifications for limited deception. The core lies in the tricky and complex balance between respect for patient autonomy and the duty to protect and uphold human well-being. This is made clear by examining different ethics frameworks, real cases from practice, and the psychological consequences of lying.
A fair assessment admits that the claim is complex and that truth-telling has many facets. Although lying is universally condemned on ethical grounds, the essay shows that in some cases, nuanced approaches guided by utilitarian, deontological and virtue ethics can offer an equal measure of moral sanction for selective dishonesty. The assessment also points to the importance of case-by-case analysis because each situation is unique and complicated.
In truth-telling, overcoming ethical dilemmas requires a comprehensive approach. The rigorous moral training of medical personnel that stresses the concepts of transparency and communication makes it possible to establish a culture in which the duty to truth is adhered to. Only an open dialogue within the medical community and ongoing research into psychological and cultural aspects of truth-telling can provide a basis to develop future ethical guidelines. Finding a happy medium between sincerity and sympathy involves constantly examining one’s moral character, rigorous professional counselling services, and determination to adhere to the essential thrust underlying medical ethics each time you meet with dispatched clients.
Bibliography
Beauchamp T and Childress J, Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed, Oxford University Press USA,2019)
Cave, E, Brazier M and Heywood, R, Medicine, Patients and the Law (7th ed Manchester University Press, 2023
Farrell, A and Dove E, Mason and McCall Smith’s Law and Medical Ethics (12th ed, Oxford University Press 2023)
George, R. Truth Telling, Deceit and Lying in Cases of Advanced Dementia. [2011] EoLJ
Goold I and Herring J, Great Debates in Medical Ethics and Law (2nd ed, Palgrave 2018)
Griffin, S. Ethics & Truth Telling. [Slides]
Phillips A M et al. (eds), Philosophical Foundations of Medical Law (Oxford University Press 2019)
Piers, B. Medicine, Lies and Deception. [2001] JME
Sinnott-Armstrong, W “Consequentialism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/consequentialism/
[1] Sam Griffin. Ethics & Truth Telling. [Slides] 5
[2] Beauchamp T and Childress J, Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed, Oxford University Press USA,2019)
[3] Ibid, 102.
[4] Ibid, 218.
[5] Ibid, 155
[6] Benn Piers, Medicine, Lies and Deception. [2001] JME, 130.
[7] Rob George, Truth Telling, Deceit and Lying in Cases of Advanced Dementia. [2011] EoLJ, 2
[8] Ibid, 3
[9] Beauchamp T and Childress J, Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed, Oxford University Press USA,2019)
[10] Ibid, 107
[11] Ibid 333
[12] Ibid 368
[13] Goold I and Herring J, Great Debates in Medical Ethics and Law (2nd ed, Palgrave 2018)
[14] Rob George, Truth Telling, Deceit and Lying in Cases of Advanced Dementia. [2011] EoLJ, 4
[15] Cave, E, Brazier M and Heywood, R, Medicine, Patients and the Law (7th ed Manchester University Press, 2023
[16] Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, “Consequentialism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/consequentialism/
[17] Ibid
[18] Goold I and Herring J, Great Debates in Medical Ethics and Law (2nd ed, Palgrave 2018)
[19] Rob George, Truth Telling, Deceit and Lying in Cases of Advanced Dementia. [2011] EoLJ 3
[20] Ibid 3
[21] Phillips A M et al. (eds), Philosophical Foundations of Medical Law (Oxford University Press 2019)
[22] Beauchamp T and Childress J, Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed, Oxford University Press USA,2019)
[23] Farrell, A and Dove E, Mason and McCall Smith’s Law and Medical Ethics (12th ed, Oxford University Press 2023)
[24] Farrell, A and Dove E, Mason and McCall Smith’s Law and Medical Ethics (12th ed, Oxford University Press 2023)
write