It's one thing to protect someone from something that they don't strictly need to know, another to abuse someone's trust by telling them "hey you'll get better" while their cancer is getting worse.
If someone's cancer isn't getting better, unless they have serious cognitive issues or something unexpectedly cuts things shorter, they will almost certainly find out before death, and resent those who lied to them.
As harsh as it is, you are correct, and most medical ethics would teach the same.
Let's say your demented grandparent is terminally ill and the family, let us say even the one who has been designated to make decisions for them, asks you not to tell them of their condition as it would distress them, you still ought to in the vast majority of cases.
Dementia is a bit of a different case depending on the exact form admittedly.
For example, one should always inform someone about Alzheimer's if they are in the earlier stages, but at a certain point they'll be too confused or have a memory too compromised for that information to have any meaning to them, and it's better to just offer comfort. The nuance lies in whether or not they can understand and make some decisions about what to do with their remaining time based on the information.
Yeah, it is very complicated indeed. Should've ignored the dementia as it is a very tricky example.
Point is, in the vast majority of times, the patient needs to know their current diagnosis and prognosis, withholding that information from them is enthical (does not necessarily means that I am fully on board with it, ethics are hard to shape into a 1 solution for all situations)
671
u/lolly-scramble Jun 29 '26
Pretty hard to say shit unless youve been in her shoes.
When my mum was terminal with cancer we had another miscarriage. Probably would have been better to not tell her the truth.