• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it ok for Dr's to lie to patients to prevent an abortion?

Is it ok for Dr's to lie to patients to prevent an abortion?

  • Yes...

    Votes: 4 8.2%
  • No...

    Votes: 45 91.8%

  • Total voters
    49

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
75,199
Reaction score
25,407
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If he lies to any patient, he should have his license revoked on the first strike and blacklisted. No second chances. They knew protocol when they trained and signed up for the job.

yep, there is no reason for a doctor to lie or not do his job based on any personal morals/opinions/religion.
 

IceteaGreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
35
Reaction score
6
Location
Belgium
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Damn this thread really made me angry

I am as pro choice as we can be... I fully support womens right to choose, but in this thread, I am on maggie, digsbe and other's side! this bill does not allow doctors to lie (even by omission), but shield them from being attacked if they do not diagnose a problem on the unborn

Every medical test is not 100pct foolproof...i have worked on downs syndrom tests (the serological test, not amniocentesis) and it is a STATISTICAL test, meaning there is a possibility of a false negative... Suing a doctor because your child have a birth defect that was not detected is despicable ... Medicine is not all knowing and people tend to forget that...

Dont get me wrong, if there is a clear malpractice or lye by the doctor, there i fully support suing him. And again, the bill is clear on that

Ben
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
75,199
Reaction score
25,407
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Damn this thread really made me angry

I am as pro choice as we can be... I fully support womens right to choose, but in this thread, I am on maggie, digsbe and other's side! this bill does not allow doctors to lie (even by omission), but shield them from being attacked if they do not diagnose a problem on the unborn

Every medical test is not 100pct foolproof...i have worked on downs syndrom tests (the serological test, not amniocentesis) and it is a STATISTICAL test, meaning there is a possibility of a false negative... Suing a doctor because your child have a birth defect that was not detected is despicable ... Medicine is not all knowing and people tend to forget that...

Dont get me wrong, if there is a clear malpractice or lye by the doctor, there i fully support suing him. And again, the bill is clear on that

Ben

The problem is the law clearly allows an omission based on the doctors "opinion" and then AFTERWARDS if the patient sues or even finds out there is a reason to sue then the doctor COULD be held accountable and the HUGE GLARING PROBLEM IN THAT is that the damage could already be done, someone could already be dead or missing a limb or organ or sense etc.

Doctors shouldnt have any options AT ALL to "omit" anything what so ever, the law should say FULL DISCLOSURE AT ALL TIMES.

yes medicine is not 100% but if the doctor gives full disclosure thats what protects him not the ability to "omit" something.

Thats the problem people have with the law, it being about abortions is meaningless to me I want full disclosure even for an ingrown toenail.

If the doctor tells me all that makes it HARDER to blame him.
 

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It would suck if a doctor withheld information from me.

Do not withhold data from me.
 

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
16,693
Reaction score
5,628
Location
There's my hat.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Law enforcement has been legally allowed to lie during interrogations for some time now, but we cannot legally lie to them. Might as well allow Doctors, Lawyers, and plumbers to legally tell lies. When everyone is allowed to legally lie we should legalize cheating and stealing. Then we will all know chaos.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Doctors shouldnt have any options AT ALL to "omit" anything what so ever, the law should say FULL DISCLOSURE AT ALL TIMES.

A person with someone else's healthcare power of attorney can ask a doctor not to tell the patient something. If it passes the doctor's common sense test, he will oblige. He will not lie if the patient asks.

Part of a doctor's job, if you will, is to give people hope. Telling people that they are terminally ill, in many cases, does the patient no good at all. Doctors will often ease into a patient's condition expecting that a patient will ask for the answers to hard questions. Many people do not ask those hard questions. Some people do. Doctors cannot lie.

Personal situation a friend is going through right this minute:

Doctor: "I have some really good news!" We told you last week that it appeared your wife had pancreatic cancer...now, after the number of tests we've done, and a staff meeting with all specialists involved, we've changed our diagnosis. We believe she has lung cancer. It's metasticized to her liver, but we think we can do a pretty good job of beating it back with chemotherapy."

This family, the patient, her husband and kids, are all ecstatic Should they be? If they'd have asked too many questions, they wouldn't have been ecstatic at all. Which is better? Spreading hope? Or spreading the gloomy, unvarnished truth?
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
75,199
Reaction score
25,407
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A person with someone else's healthcare power of attorney can ask a doctor not to tell the patient something. If it passes the doctor's common sense test, he will oblige. He will not lie if the patient asks.

Part of a doctor's job, if you will, is to give people hope. Telling people that they are terminally ill, in many cases, does the patient no good at all. Doctors will often ease into a patient's condition expecting that a patient will ask for the answers to hard questions. Many people do not ask those hard questions. Some people do. Doctors cannot lie.

Personal situation a friend is going through right this minute:

Doctor: "I have some really good news!" We told you last week that it appeared your wife had pancreatic cancer...now, after the number of tests we've done, and a staff meeting with all specialists involved, we've changed our diagnosis. We believe she has lung cancer. It's metasticized to her liver, but we think we can do a pretty good job of beating it back with chemotherapy."

This family, the patient, her husband and kids, are all ecstatic Should they be? If they'd have asked too many questions, they wouldn't have been ecstatic at all. Which is better? Spreading hope? Or spreading the gloomy, unvarnished truth?

i dont have a problem with power of attorney as that is VERY different and that doesn't apply to my statement. Im talking about Dotors being allowed to omit things, this i will never be in favor of, ever, it violates my rights.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
i dont have a problem with power of attorney as that is VERY different and that doesn't apply to my statement. Im talking about Dotors being allowed to omit things, this i will never be in favor of, ever, it violates my rights.

So a doctor should have to tell this lady:
You don't have pancreatic cancer; you have lung cancer. It's metasticized to your liver. The fact that we've just caught it and it's already spread means you have a very aggressive form of the disease. We can treat it with chemotherapy and try to beat it back, but only 1.5% survive six months.

That's truth. That's not omitting anything. That's better?
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
75,199
Reaction score
25,407
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So a doctor should have to tell this lady:


That's truth. That's not omitting anything. That's better?

yes 100%

its better than lying or admitting the truth and TRUST me this issue is very close to me losing my dad to cancer.

He was giving the whole sunshine up his ass speech and beat his colon cancer and did it according to the doctor impressively well. He must be a very tough man both physically and mentally.

What was "omitted" is that his case wasnt all the impressive it was kind of normal and he was still at serious risk. So my dad decided based on him beating the cancer "impressively well" and having no "current signs of cancer" and not being explain the true harsh reality that he is still in SERIOUS risk he only elected to take on SOME of the after treatments and preventive maintence.

due to this decision the colon cancer actually spread without him or doctors knowing, by time it was discovered it was stage 4 liver cancer and he died.

Had he known that he wasnt so tough and really didnt do anything "impressively" and was still very much in harms way instead of the happy sunshine bull**** story of how well and how tough he did he most certainly would have elected for the full on treatment of chemo etc and the likely hood of the canse spreading or going undetected would have been very slim.

only his LAST doctor had the balls to admitt to us that his liver cance came from the colon caner and that my dad should have had the full run down even after he beat it and those declensions shouldn't have been explained to him so lightly but stressed very importantly.


so yes **** ommiting anything because my dad could very well be here today based off of truth instead of having sunshine blown up his ass from a doctor who felt PERSONALLY his reassurance and bull**** was more important.

He fought 10 times as hard when they told him he had stage 4 cancer and you are most certainly going to die in 6 months or less then he ever did when they said its 60-75% you will live.

weird huh?

I want the truth and what the person decides to do with the truth is ON THEM. They want to give up thats their CHOICE instead of the choice being taken from them like my dad.

**** THAT! **** OMITTING!

rant over
 

Michael Johnson

Libturd Destroyer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
5,818
Reaction score
924
Location
Hell's Kitchen - Where I cook Lying Libs for break
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
A person with someone else's healthcare power of attorney can ask a doctor not to tell the patient something. If it passes the doctor's common sense test, he will oblige. He will not lie if the patient asks.

Part of a doctor's job, if you will, is to give people hope. Telling people that they are terminally ill, in many cases, does the patient no good at all. Doctors will often ease into a patient's condition expecting that a patient will ask for the answers to hard questions. Many people do not ask those hard questions. Some people do. Doctors cannot lie.

Personal situation a friend is going through right this minute:

Doctor: "I have some really good news!" We told you last week that it appeared your wife had pancreatic cancer...now, after the number of tests we've done, and a staff meeting with all specialists involved, we've changed our diagnosis. We believe she has lung cancer. It's metasticized to her liver, but we think we can do a pretty good job of beating it back with chemotherapy."

This family, the patient, her husband and kids, are all ecstatic Should they be? If they'd have asked too many questions, they wouldn't have been ecstatic at all. Which is better? Spreading hope? Or spreading the gloomy, unvarnished truth?

Yes naturally a doctor is supposed to "give hope" but their main job is to let their patient know what is really going on with their body so they can be prepared for worst-case scenario. Lying about the facts is not in their job description.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
75,199
Reaction score
25,407
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes naturally a doctor is supposed to "give hope" but their main job is to let their patient know what is really going on with their body so they can be prepared for worst-case scenario. Lying about the facts is not in their job description.

exactly hope and truth, nothing else is acceptable.
 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,407
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A person with someone else's healthcare power of attorney can ask a doctor not to tell the patient something. If it passes the doctor's common sense test, he will oblige. He will not lie if the patient asks.

Part of a doctor's job, if you will, is to give people hope. Telling people that they are terminally ill, in many cases, does the patient no good at all. Doctors will often ease into a patient's condition expecting that a patient will ask for the answers to hard questions. Many people do not ask those hard questions. Some people do. Doctors cannot lie.

Personal situation a friend is going through right this minute:

Doctor: "I have some really good news!" We told you last week that it appeared your wife had pancreatic cancer...now, after the number of tests we've done, and a staff meeting with all specialists involved, we've changed our diagnosis. We believe she has lung cancer. It's metasticized to her liver, but we think we can do a pretty good job of beating it back with chemotherapy."

This family, the patient, her husband and kids, are all ecstatic Should they be? If they'd have asked too many questions, they wouldn't have been ecstatic at all. Which is better? Spreading hope? Or spreading the gloomy, unvarnished truth?

I understand your logic and I can see "lying" to children since children don't have decision power or the ability to really understand. But there are many problems with your example. First, like it or not a person should at least have the right to face reality - even if that is impending death, coming hardship etc. Second, the patient may wish to explore the ailment, pursuing alternatives or adding holistic approaches in addition to what the medical staff is doing - for which the falsehood defeats any possible alternatives added to it.

Your example also strips away the patient's ability to make decisions on the truth. Chemotherapy is very controversial as generally it shuts down the immune system and has horrific side effects. The doctor telling the patient the chemo is "beating back the cancer" - if false or questionable - has so many obvious problems. A person does have a right to refuse chemo and pursue other options. I can't find the link, but I read that a study in the UK found that for certain forms of cancer, the patient not only lived long, but reported having a much higher quality of life without chemo.

I also know someone who faced the chemo question for skin cancer. The chemo tore her apart, completely crippled her in energy, spirit and employment - though the skin cancer itself only caused a minor scab-like look and itched. She stopped the chemo and instead had the cancer removed by a plastic surgeon and followed up with natural alternatives. There is no evidence the cancer was not completely removed. The doctor who prescribed chemo didn't do cosmetic surgery and thought she couldn't afford the specialist for the surgery. So instead, he had only told her the chemo would ultimately beat the cancer and that chemo was the only option she had.

Instead, all the chemo was doing was destroying her life. He told her only chemo could treat it because that is all he himself offered - and falsely guessed the woman couldn't afford surgical removal because she didn't have insurance. Actually the woman is quite wealthy, she was furious when she learned the real truth, obviously would never go to that doctor again and warns all people she knows facing cancer that doctors lie about chemo - thus a residual negative unknown to other people who might benefit from chemo.

People need the truth. The truth can be hard, but at least the person is making decisions and dealing with their emotions in terms of reality.
 
Last edited:

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
10,988
Reaction score
8,739
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I understand your logic and I can see "lying" to children since children don't have decision power or the ability to really understand. But there are many problems with your example. First, like it or not a person should at least have the right to face reality - even if that is impending death, coming hardship etc. Second, the patient may wish to explore the ailment, pursuing alternatives or adding holistic approaches in addition to what the medical staff is doing - for which the falsehood defeats any possible alternatives added to it.

Your example also strips away the patient's ability to make decisions on the truth. Chemotherapy is very controversial as generally it shuts down the immune system and has horrific side effects. The doctor telling the patient the chemo is "beating back the cancer" - if false or questionable - has so many obvious problems. A person does have a right to refuse chemo and pursue other options. I can't find the link, but I read that a study in the UK found that for certain forms of cancer, the patient not only lived long, but reported having a much higher quality of life without chemo.

I also know someone who faced the chemo question for skin cancer. The chemo tore her apart, completely crippled her in energy, spirit and employment - though the skin cancer itself only caused a minor scab-like look and itched. She stopped the chemo and instead had the cancer removed by a plastic surgeon and followed up with natural alternatives. There is no evidence the cancer was not completely removed. The doctor who prescribed chemo didn't do cosmetic surgery and thought she couldn't afford the specialist for the surgery. So instead, he had only told her the chemo would ultimately beat the cancer and that chemo was the only option she had.

Instead, all the chemo was doing was destroying her life. He told her only chemo could treat it because that is all he himself offered - and falsely guessed the woman couldn't afford surgical removal because she didn't have insurance. Actually the woman is quite wealthy, she was furious when she learned the real truth, obviously would never go to that doctor again and warns all people she knows facing cancer that doctors lie about chemo - thus a residual negative unknown to other people who might benefit from chemo.

People need the truth. The truth can be hard, but at least the person is making decisions and dealing with their emotions in terms of reality.

This is a really good post. The doctor based his lie on false assumptions about the woman and the truth would have solved her problems. Lying about anything so serious is the key - if you reach the point of needing to tell a serious lie, there's probably some lie down there at the level of your assumptions which you need to stop first.
 
Top Bottom