- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- 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.
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
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?
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.
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.
So a doctor should have to tell this lady:
That's truth. That's not omitting anything. That's better?
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?