Play along...

[tinyjo]

OK, just for fun, here is the essay question I will be answering this afternoon:

‘It is wrong to tell lies, so patients should always be told the truth about their condition.’ Is this a good argument?

I've turned off emailing comments on this and I promise not to look until I've written the essay (1000 words, in case you're interested). What do you think?

Comments

[oxfordhacker.livejournal.com]

I think I'd contrast this with the principle First do no harm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere), which wikipedia informs is not in fact from the Hippocratic Oath as I had thought, but is a fundamental of medical ethics. If the truth would be harmful, I'd say that could override the general principle that lying is wrong (and, indeed, the more specific principle that lying to your patient is wrong).

[aveleh]

I don't know, does that override the principle that lying is wrong, or mean that it's still wrong but *also* right? (Clearly I'm asking the question because I think it's both.)

[oxfordhacker.livejournal.com]

I meant 'override' when considering how to act. As you say, you can (and (arguably) should) choose to do something that's morally wrong if the alternative is wronger, but that still doesn't somehow make the act right.

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's one part of the Four Principles approach to medical ethics:

1) Autonomy - the patient has the right to automous decision making.
2) Benificence - doctors should strive for the best outcome for the patient
3) Non-malificence - doctors should strive to do no harm
4) Justice - resources should be fairly allocated with no one patient being privileged over another

Obviously, all those have interesting definitional arguements and I can provide examples when all 4 principles might support lying to the patient.

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

NB, these are not ordered and may well contradict eachother - they provide a framework of issues to consider when making decisions.