Thursday, May 31, 2012

Ch. 8: A Miserable Specimen ... 1951

Skloot reports that in 1951 “’benevolent deception’ was a common practice—doctors often withheld even the most fundamental information from their patients, sometimes not giving them any diagnosis at all.  They believed it was best not to confuse or upset patients with frightening terms they might not understand, like cancer. Doctors knew best, and most patients didn’t question that” (63).

Under what circumstances, if any, do you think “benevolent deception” is appropriate?  Under what circumstances, if any, can skepticism of experts be a dangerous thing?

 The video ad below is a 1949 television advertisement featuring a smoking doctor.
Posted by at

14 comments:

  1. UnknownJuly 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

    No matter what a patient is facing in terms of illness, I believe it is unfair to keep any information from them. If a doctor is to keep information from the patients they are treating, it could cause the patient to further injure themselves by something as simple as a food they eat or action they complete. On a larger scale however, I believe that the government could easily justify withholding information from the public as it could endanger any individual as well as the nation as a whole. For example, one terrorist in the country would easily have the information, or any enemy country could target civilians as targets for interrogation rather than trained military personal. A patient simply knowing what he or she faces is in no way on a scale as large as this one.

    -Michael Womack

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJuly 19, 2012 at 5:19 PM

    I agree with Michael in that, in some cases, the government should withhold certain information from the public that affects our national security. I definitely don't think we need to know all our nations secrets. But in the case of doctors, I don't really see a scenario where withholding information could help. A patient has the right to know whatever they want about their health and well-being.

    Matthew Parham

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownAugust 8, 2012 at 7:23 PM

    I believe that in terms of doctor/ patient relationship, there is never an appropriate time for benevolent deception. The patient in mind should have every right to know what is going on with his body. Knowing what is going on with their body will not only give them more peace of mind than if they did not, but it can also enable them to do things to help with whatever it is that is their ailment. (Eating healthier, not smoking, etc.)

    Stormy Wigley

    ReplyDelete
  4. Zach GarciaAugust 13, 2012 at 11:33 AM

    I think that where information given to the patient could put them at risk for even more harm, benevolent deception is acceptable. An example being if the information given to the patient might raise their blood pressure too high or put them on a risk of having a stroke or a heart attack, benevolent deception would be preferred by the patient in most cases.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rachel NicholasAugust 14, 2012 at 10:06 PM

    Concerning myself, I would want to know every bit of information about myself or any other situation. But I also see the ease of keeping information secret in order to not compromise a situation or the natural habits of a person. This reminds me in a way of the use of placebos in psychology/medicine. Most patients recover after being prescribed a placebo which they are told is a drug to make them better. This is an example of withholding information (the lack of healing drug in the placebo)to study the complexities of the human mind and body connected. In these cases they deemed the lack of information to be useful, if not tricky.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kelsea RabeAugust 14, 2012 at 10:09 PM

    Psychologists have made many advances by deceiving their patients. The laws even state they are allowed to leave certain things out that are essential to the experiment while getting consent. If the Lacks had known what they soon found out about Hela, there is no way they would've freely donated blood which helped cure the culture contamination. I believe patients should have the right to ask what exactly is happening-and be told- however it shouldn't be automatic. My mother was told by her doctor once that irregular cells were found and had been sent for testing. The information could've stopped there unless further inquired. Instead the doctor informed her of the possibilities, mainly cancer. She developed a bleeding ulcer from stress the next week that nearly killed her. The result? The cells were harmless. I believe patients should be informed of their diagnosis, no doubt! But it is proper to leave things out that would needlessly scare the patient until confirmed. I can imagine patients not following the diets, medicine routine, or follow-up treatment being the harm from skepticism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kristen HowardAugust 15, 2012 at 3:45 PM

    I do not think that benevolent deception is acceptable unless it is what the patient wants. I think in terms of a doctor/patient relationship if the patient requests to know all the details then they should be given. It not only eases the mind of the patient, but they are also given the opportunity to take things into their own hands to an extent. They could exercise, stop smoking, eat healthier, etc. In a way I can see how benevolent deception would be a good idea. Some patients with heart trouble may not want to know all of the details of what is wrong. It could worsen the condition they may already be in. Personally, no matter what the details may be I would want to know. I go to the doctor to find out what exactly is wrong with me. I don’t go to get the half-truth. I think benevolent deception is something that should be decided by the patient and discussed with the doctor, the certain situations and conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Erin AwtreyAugust 17, 2012 at 9:41 PM

    I don't believe any information should be withheld from a patient. A person should be allowed to know what is happening with themselves and their body, especially if it could benefit them in any way. Yet, I can also see where a doctor might withhold information from someone in the event that it is only speculation at the time and not absolute. However, the patient should still be aware if there are possibilities and which ones are being persued by the doctor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sarah SnowOctober 14, 2012 at 10:31 AM

      I agree completely, Erin. It is never, under any circumstances, acceptable for a doctor to lie to his or her patient about their health. It doesn't matter if the doctor is afraid of 'terrifying' the patient. That person has a right to know. Also, as Michael said, not informing the patient of what is medically wrong with them could actually endanger them further. If they are told what they are suffering from, they are far more likely to try to lead a healthier lifestyle and do things that can help them cope and eventually, if possible, get better. Why, then, would any doctor withhold any information that could be beneficial to his patient?

      Delete
    2. Erin AwtreyOctober 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

      Most docotors withold information in an attempt to save themselves and their practices and reputations. As upsetting as it may be to lose your personal credibility, at that point in the doctorate, I believe the doctor has lost all reason behind being a doctor and the notion that what they do is so important.

      Delete
  9. AnonymousOctober 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM

    The doctor may be smarter than the patient and understand more, but that doesn't give them the right to keep information about the patient to themselves. It is their job and duty to let the patient know if anything is wrong with them, whether or not they may overreact. They can always attempt to console the patient or whatever kind gesture they think is appropriate, but simply keeping the information to themselves is absolutely out of the question. The patient is the one who is potentially in danger and they have trusted the doctor to learn what that problem is, and if possible, fix it. Under no circumstances should a doctor withhold the kind of information form a patient the the patient is trusting him/her to tell them.

    Tell Jordan

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jessica PotterOctober 10, 2012 at 8:42 PM

    I believe when it comes to Physical illness, a doctor should not practice any kind of deception. People have the right to know what is wrong with them so that they can better determine what to do or sign off on having done. If information is with held from a patient when they are deciding whether or not to give consent for this surgery or that, then it would affect their decision making. If doctors did this, then there would be no point in even getting medical consent. However, I agree with Kelsea Rabe that it is very beneficial for psychologists to practice benevolent deception because in that case it is being used mentally to affect the persons mind and correct what ever is wrong inside it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousOctober 14, 2012 at 1:56 PM

    I agree with everyone in the fact that there is never an acceptable moment or time for a doctor to withhold facts about a patient's health. I also agree that the doctor should never release that same information to the public without the patient's consent.

    Karli Plunkett

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve BentonOctober 28, 2012 at 2:21 PM

    Kelsea presents an interesting scenario. What if a doctor believes that the stress caused by a full diagnosis is likely to raise a patient's blood pressure to dangerous levels? Or, to present a different scenario, what if the doctor thinks the patient is in a precarious emotional state and a true diagnosis would endanger their mental health? In these cases, wouldn't a doctor be justified in not giving the patient a complete diagnosis (as long as depriving the patient of this knowledge would not itself lead to further endangerment)?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)