Can deceiving patients be morally acceptable?

doi:10.1136/bmj.39184.419826.80

From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients
We are open for entries!

Online learning

BMJ Learning

High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more

Courses and Qualifications

BMJ Masterclasses

BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more

Exam Preparation

The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more

onExamination

Search all BMJ comment articles:

From

Limit by

Our online table of contents is updated at least twice each day. Read all articles published in the last 7 days.
Keep up to date with cardiology: Access the latest cardiovascular medicine resources from across BMJ Group.
The BMJ iPad app brings you the best of print and online, including live links to the latest news, blogs, video, and podcasts. Get the BMJ iPad app.
OPEN ACCESS: All research articles are freely available online, with no word limit. Find out more about the BMJ's open access policy. Submit your paper.
Countdown to London 2012: BMJ Group's Olympics portal highlights latest Olympics and sports medicine-themed research, comment and learning

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

Daniel K Sokol, lecturer in ethics

Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG

Correspondence to: daniel.sokol{at}talk21.com

Daniel K Sokol argues that on rare occasions benignly deceiving patients can be morally acceptable, and he has devised a decision checklist to help doctors facing such a dilemma

Nearly all doctors, at some time, will question the wisdom of telling a grim truth to a patient. To help doctors resolve such dilemmas, I have developed a “deception flowchart.” By providing a sequence of questions and a checklist of relevant moral considerations, the flowchart might help the ethically sensitive doctor make a more informed decision about when to over-ride the duty to be honest. It might also be useful to teachers of medical ethics, who can use it to illustrate the complexity of this puzzling area of medicine.

The ongoing deception debate

It is a truth universally acknowledged that ethical doctors will not intentionally deceive their patients. The American Medical Association states: “A physician shall . . . be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians . . . engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.”1

Similar injunctions are offered by the World Medical Association and the United Kingdom's General Medical Council.2 3 The situation at the bedside may well be different, however.4 5 6 7 8 When it comes to disclosing a grim prognosis, doctors may control information by using euphemisms, ambiguities, evasions, and other strategies.5 7 9 In some countries, doctors commonly withhold an adverse diagnosis and prognosis from patients.10 11

I have argued elsewhere that benignly intended deception by doctors may, in some cases, be morally acceptable.9 12 Although deception in medicine is generally wrong, as it tends to undermine patients' autonomy and erode the trust between doctor and patient, the ethical duty to be honest is not absolute. Some moral goods, such as the avoidance of severe physical or emotional …