Honesty in the medical profession has always been a difficult issue, particularly in the case of the doctor and patient. Often, a doctor will be tempted to withhold information from his/her patient with the belief that he/she is sparing the patient from the distress receiving such information can cause. This justification is termed “therapeutic privilege” by the American Medical Association (AMA, 2006); and many physicians, such as Dr. Collins, defend the use of such practices.
However, this practice can cause more harm than good in that it prevents doctors from getting the proper consent from their patients regarding treatment options. Such consent is termed “informed consent” by the AMA and involves a doctor giving his/her patient all the …show more content…
Judge Robinson III argues against such a stance claiming that in order for a doctor to have true consent from a patient, he/she must reveal all information necessary to make an informed decision (142). In fact, many medical codes of ethics and medical law require doctors to obtain informed consent from a patient before performing treatment and studies show that bad news doesn’t have as much of an effect on patients’ health as some doctors think (Bok, …show more content…
By providing multiple points and counter-points, some of the strongest arguments from each side of the issue have been presented for consideration. The arguments raised against therapeutic privilege should be considered much more substantial because they are based largely on empirical evidence that the average person has access to and is able to weigh more easily instead of the anecdotal arguments for it that would require one to have experience in the medical field to really understand the arguments and their implications. By analyzing the nature of denial, arguments concerning patients not wanting the truth were dispelled. Additionally, the duty to respect autonomy and to obtain informed consent from patients makes it difficult to argue for keeping information from patients. By respecting the rights of patients to know information, better outcomes will result by allowing for their informed consent, which will allow for more trusting relationships between patients and their doctors and a better medical environment for all
However, this practice can cause more harm than good in that it prevents doctors from getting the proper consent from their patients regarding treatment options. Such consent is termed “informed consent” by the AMA and involves a doctor giving his/her patient all the …show more content…
Judge Robinson III argues against such a stance claiming that in order for a doctor to have true consent from a patient, he/she must reveal all information necessary to make an informed decision (142). In fact, many medical codes of ethics and medical law require doctors to obtain informed consent from a patient before performing treatment and studies show that bad news doesn’t have as much of an effect on patients’ health as some doctors think (Bok, …show more content…
By providing multiple points and counter-points, some of the strongest arguments from each side of the issue have been presented for consideration. The arguments raised against therapeutic privilege should be considered much more substantial because they are based largely on empirical evidence that the average person has access to and is able to weigh more easily instead of the anecdotal arguments for it that would require one to have experience in the medical field to really understand the arguments and their implications. By analyzing the nature of denial, arguments concerning patients not wanting the truth were dispelled. Additionally, the duty to respect autonomy and to obtain informed consent from patients makes it difficult to argue for keeping information from patients. By respecting the rights of patients to know information, better outcomes will result by allowing for their informed consent, which will allow for more trusting relationships between patients and their doctors and a better medical environment for all