Lying in emergencies

[DragonMaci]

You dont understand, Im not trying to justify it as such, its horrible, it might be a terrible breach of their rights, but if one beleives death is the only option, then I do not think it is evil to choose that over death. I am saying that given the choice of that or allowing one to die, it is prefferable. Can you not see this?

No, I do not, as the patient as a right to life and the right to life includes the right to end it. And no one has the right to deny them that right.

Edited June 9, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Prometheus98876]

They do have the right to end it. The doctor isnt changing that. He is merely trying to take actions that prevent him dying in one way. NOthing stops the patient (assuming any action is open to him at all) ending his life. Now granted the patient can completely refuse any and all treatment, and not deal with the doctor at all, or at least he should have this option.

If the patient wants to die..thats fine..he has the right..but im assuming he wishes to live.

Edited June 9, 2007 by Prometheus98876

[DragonMaci]

Now granted the patient can completely refuse any and all treatment

Exactly! That is the sort of situation I am referring to! My point is that if the doctor lies to him he cannot base such a decision of=n reality, only on fantasy, and so lying to the patient is wrong, as it denies him the ability to base such a decision on reality instead of fantasy. Now do you see what my point is? Or are you going to get it wrong again?

Besides as for the lying to help them live crap, neither you nor anyone else has addressed my point about rational patents prefering both turth and life that i made several times. Is that because you all know that it is a valid argument that cannot be rationally refutted?

[Prometheus98876]

Ok, sum up those points if you will...perhaps I will address them.

Exactly! That is the sort of situation I am referring to! My point is that if the doctor lies to him he cannot base such a decision of=n reality, only on fantasy, and so lying to the patient is wrong, as it denies him the ability to base such a decision on reality instead of fantasy. Now do you see what my point is? Or are you going to get it wrong again?

Besides as for the lying to help them live crap, neither you nor anyone else has addressed my point about rational patents prefering both turth and life that i made several times. Is that because you all know that it is a valid argument that cannot be rationally refutted?

Any and all treatment would be refusing to deal with the doctor or anyone else offering treatment. But if the patient prefers treatment, ie he wants to live but his choices of offered "treatments" will kill him, then its still preferable for those trying to treat him to lie to him if it will save his life. You have provided no explanation as for why allowing him to die is prefferable, even given "a violition of rights".

[DragonMaci]

Ok, sum up those points if you will...perhaps I will address them.

OK, here they are:

1. A rational person would prefer to know both the truth and live. Do you agree with that?

2. That if you lie to a patient then any decision they make is based on fantasy rather than reality. I assume you agree with that.

3. If their decisions are based on fantasy rather than reality then their ability to make that decision rationally removed.

4. What right does the doctor have to impair the patient's ability to make rational decisions on treatment? I would argue none.

5. If they have no such right then they should not lie, as they are contradicting the principle of letting people make their own decisions, as if you are not truly allowing them to do that, as you lie scewers their decision.

Is that clear enough for you?

Edited June 9, 2007 by DragonMaci

[RationalBiker]

No, the doctor only as an obligation to save a patient if he wants to live.

Sure, but my statement presumes the person wants to live. Yes, if he would prefer to die, well it doesn't matter what the doctor tells him. So since we can contort this emergency room situation any way we want, the person who wants the truth and prefers to die when the alternative could otherwise cause them to live and make a full recovery is being irrational.

I'm not sure how much you deal with people in medical traumas, say like gunshot wounds or stabbings and the like, but otherwise rational people don't always behave rationally under such situations. Just because they don't act rationally in such an emergency situation does not make them irrational people.

However, I'm speaking for myself. I have no need to convince you how to think or handle a situation if you are the one laying on the emergency room table. By all means, handle that situation however you think is best for your life. I hope you never have to face such an emergency, and if you do I hope you can think rationally throughout it.

1. A rational person would prefer to know both the truth and live. Do you agree with that?

You just don't seem to understand or have any experience in dealing with people in trauma. Otherwise rational people can behave very irrationally when subject to traumatic injury. This is NOT a clear-cut yes answer, it depends on a specific context.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Prometheus98876]

OK, here they are:

1. A rational person would prefer to know both the truth and live. Do you agree with that?

2. That if you lie to a patient then any decision they make is based on fantasy rather than reality. I assume you agree with that.

3. If their decisions are based on fantasy rather than reality then their ability to make that decision rationally removed.

4. What right does the doctor have to impair the patient's ability to make rational decisions on treatment? I would argue none.

5. If they have no such right then they should not lie, as they are contradicting the principle of letting people make their own decisions, as if you are not truly allowing them to do that, as you lie scewers their decision.

Is that clear enough for you?

lets assume the patient wants to live, and wants treatment. he is free at any time to refuse to deal with the doctor, or go elsewhere, or to kill himself in whatever way he can and chooses. If he is a vegetable, he has the full right to refuse any treatment or means of prolonging his life, which then would allow him to die (possibly very quickily).

1) Well, no I think a ratonal person would rather they were alive and lied to. Now, as I said, dont lie to the rational person unless there is good reason to beleive the only option is their death. But ask rational men, I think they would prefer to be lied to and live than to die, and would grant taht the doctor made the right choice to lie as it saved his life at least. I think its grossly irrational to prefer to die than to be lied to..

2) I would agree with this, but it might be possible that you dont have the time to present the truth, or for some reason you cannot tell it, but a lie is neccessary to save their life. Granted this is very u nlikely and rare, but assuming the situation could and did arise where telling them the truth would somhow kill them, if you value their life, then its better to let them live, even if misinformed than to tell them the truth and then have them die.

3) Isnt it better to live and be misguided than to know the truth for a moment then to die? These are al emergency situations, the optiosn are between the what woudl normally be things that should never be allowed, ie lies, or knowing the full truth or death. Its better to be alive and to beleive a fantasy than to be DEAD.

4 (im going to put 5 in here, as its sorta related) =>

This is not a matter of "does he have the right" as such, it is a matter of does he beleive that the patients "rights" are more important than the patients life. Why on EARTH would the doctor beleive the patients death is prefferable to "Breaching the patients rights"? Remember, we are assuming the patient wants to live, which is a reasonable assumption, if the patient wants to die, if he wants to de he should make it clear. If he tells the doctor "If its a matter of my rights of death, let me die" well, oK maybe the doctor should respect that, but the patient woudl be insane to say that.

I dont think I can make this any more clear...if you dont get it , then I dont t hink I care to try explain it anymore.

[hunterrose]

But what if the patient does not want treatment or to survive?

Wouldn't the patient have an obligation to say so?

If the patient says "I don't want surgery if the chance of survival is less than 20%", and the doctor lies in saying that an impending operation has greater than 20% chance of survival, I agree with you.

But if the patient doesn't say such a thing (i.e. "I don't want X under conditions Y") and the doctor doesn't know of the unstated conditional, I don't see precisely why the doctor has the obligation to truthfully tell the patient what the chance of survival is - even if the patient asks what the chance of survival is.

[RationalBiker]

Besides as for the lying to help them live crap, neither you nor anyone else has addressed my point about rational patents prefering both turth and life that i made several times. Is that because you all know that it is a valid argument that cannot be rationally refutted?

First, it's not crap. There's no need to escalate the tone of this conversation to one that it hostile. Second I didn't specifically address it because it is not a point that wins the argument, it's simply one possibility in any number of varying contexts. What a rational person may "prefer" and what the outcome may be can be two very different things.

[DragonMaci]

You just don't seem to understand or have any experience in dealing with people in trauma. Otherwise rational people can behave very irrationally when subject to traumatic injury. This is NOT a clear-cut yes answer, it depends on a specific context.

Is that clear enough for you?

Yes, but the person is still better off with the truth and life than a lie and life. My point is that knowing the truth and living is superior to living and being lied to. Besides, in lying to them you are saying they are incapable of handling the truth, which is insulting.

lets assume the patient wants to live, and wants treatment.

Then there is no need to lie to them since they want. Besides, I was not talking ab out such people. I was talking about either: a) people that want to die, or, more importantly, people that want to live, but do not want a particular treatment. How are they to properly make such a decision if they are told a lie instead of the truth?

he is free at any time to refuse to deal with the doctor, or go elsewhere, or to kill himself in whatever way he can and chooses.

Yes, but I refer you to the question above.

If he is a vegetable, he has the full right to refuse any treatment or means of prolonging his life, which then would allow him to die (possibly very quickily).

And if he isn't a vegetable? Does he still have that right?

1) Well, no I think a ratonal person would rather they were alive and lied to.

Why the hell would anyone prefer a lie and life over the truth and life?

Now, as I said, dont lie to the rational person unless there is good reason to beleive the only option is their death.

I very much doubt the a lie would save someone and that the truth and life would not be possible.

I think its grossly irrational to prefer to die than to be lied to..

I never said anything about prefering the truth and death. I said the truth and life. There is nothing irrational about preferrong the truth and life. It is in fact quite ratiuonal.

2) I would agree with this, but it might be possible that you dont have the time to present the truth, or for some reason you cannot tell it, but a lie is neccessary to save their life. Granted this is very u nlikely and rare, but assuming the situation could and did arise where telling them the truth would somhow kill them, if you value their life, then its better to let them live, even if misinformed than to tell them the truth and then have them die.

I am extremely doubtful that this has ever happened or could ever happen. If you could provide me with even one case of it I would be extremely surprised, but I doubt you can do that.

3) Isnt it better to live and be misguided than to know the truth for a moment then to die?

How many times do I have to say I was not talking about preferring truth over life, but that I was talking about preferring BOTH? At least half a dozen so far, and it still has not sunk in yet. I am starting to doubt it ever will.

This is not a matter of "does he have the right" as such, it is a matter of does he beleive that the patients "rights" are more important than the patients life. Why on EARTH would the doctor beleive the patients death is prefferable to "Breaching the patients rights"?

Life without rights is meaningless, so it is it not a matter of which is preferable, but the fact that the two go hand-in-hand. You cannot truly have one without the other. The doctor must act cosnsistent with this if he is to be onjective, so he should never breach the patient's rights. EVER. Period. End of story.

Remember, we are assuming the patient wants to live.

No, you are, I am not, so "we" is incorrect. I am neither assuming he wants to live or that he wants to die. I am talking either he wants to die or he wants to live but not than ks to the use of a particular treatment. Sometimes there are good reasons to refuxe particular treatments, but ONLY if one is told the truth about them.

"If its a matter of my rights of death, let me die" well, oK maybe the doctor should respect that, but the patient woudl be insane to say that.

Insane? No, sometimes there are good reasons to want to die. Maybe you have some value in life left to you in life, but not enough to justify a particular treatment. The thing is if you are lied to you cannot rationally make such a decision.

I dont think I can make this any more clear...if you dont get it , then I dont t hink I care to try explain it anymore.

I get it, I just don't agree.

Wouldn't the patient have an obligation to say so?

Yes, but if lied to the decision that lead to that statement is not based on reality, as it should be.

First, it's not crap. There's no need to escalate the tone of this conversation to one that it hostile. Second I didn't specifically address it because it is not a point that wins the argument, it's simply one possibility in any number of varying contexts. What a rational person may "prefer" and what the outcome may be can be two very different things.

Firstly, I was not being hostile, I was stating an opinion. My opinion is that it is crap for the reasons I have given in this post. That is far from hostility. Secondly, I never said it won an argument, only that no one addressed it, even though it was an impoartant part of my point.

[Prometheus98876]

[Argument between me and DragonMaci was taken into another medium outside the forum and mostly resolved at this point.]

Man, yet again another emergency based thread ends up long and heated :-P. Phew..how many is that now?

Edited June 9, 2007 by Prometheus98876

[DragonMaci]

[Argument between me and DragonMaci was taken into another medium outside the forum and mostly resolved at this point.]

Man, yet again another emergency based thread ends up long and heated. Phew..how many is that now?

Who was heated? I did not notice it.

As for the debeate being moved, well it is mostly settled now. It just has a few minor issues to be settled.

[Prometheus98876]

Well I edidte the post to make it clear that I was exaggreating that a little. But such debates I have noticed often end in / contain very long and often heated debates, but I guess that is to be expected.

[DragonMaci]

Well I edidte the post to make it clear that I was exaggreating that a little. But such debates I have noticed often end in / contain very long and often heated debates, but I guess that is to be expected.

Yeah, some people just like to debate endlessly in heated tones sadly.

[RationalBiker]

Yes, but the person is still better off with the truth and life than a lie and life. My point is that knowing the truth and living is superior to living and being lied to.

But it's NOT better if telling the truth is something that ultimately causes them to die because they can't handle it due to their traumatic state. The person who wants to live is better off living whether it took a lie or the truth so the "superior" case is contextual to the circumstances.

Besides, in lying to them you are saying they are incapable of handling the truth, which is insulting.

It's not insulting in the least to recognize that in reality they can't handle the truth because of the traumatic state of mind they are in. It's a recognition of reality on the doctor's part when the patient is otherwise not capable or dealing with reality. Think of it as being analogous to being given anethesia for surgery. Would you want the full "reality" pain of being sliced open on the operating table or would you rather have the "fantasy" of drugs to block the pain? That's rhetorical, you don't have to answer it. At any rate, I'll take being insulted then ultimately living rather than being respected and dying (within the context under discussion).

I don't fault you for your logic or adherence to principles in your opinion. Where I think your position is lacking is in knowledge of dealing with people in emergency medical conditions and the possible state of mind they can be in. You appear to deny that otherwise rational people can legitimately be in a different state of mind when they are experiencing some significant medical emergency. I'd be willing to bet you have little to no experience in actually dealing with people who are suffering from significant burns, compound fractures, stab wounds, gunshot wounds, internal injuries from car accidents, etc. etc. I know factually that otherwise rational people can be in a different state of mind in such instances. It isn't a matter that they might otherwise prefer to live and be told the truth, it's a matter that their current state of mind is affected by their current medical emergency and they aren't dealing with it well. This is a perfectly normal human reaction.

That said, I've laid out my position all I care to. If you are unpersuaded, so be it.

Edited June 9, 2007 by RationalBiker

[RationalBiker]

Yeah, some people just like to debate endlessly in heated tones sadly.

Fortunately none of them are in this thread.

[miseleigh]

I never said anything about prefering the truth and death. I said the truth and life. There is nothing irrational about preferrong the truth and life. It is in fact quite ratiuonal.

I am extremely doubtful that this has ever happened or could ever happen. If you could provide me with even one case of it I would be extremely surprised, but I doubt you can do that.

How many times do I have to say I was not talking about preferring truth over life, but that I was talking about preferring BOTH? At least half a dozen so far, and it still has not sunk in yet. I am starting to doubt it ever will.

Your statement hasn't 'sunk in' yet because the topic at hand does not have the option of both truth and life. It is obvious that one would prefer the truth and life over lies and life... but if the situation doesn't allow for the preferred option, would you take a lie and life over truth and death? Personally, I would rather be lied to and live than be told the truth and die. And yes, I would rather be told the truth and live than either of those two options, but this topic assumes that can't be done.

My point is that knowing the truth and living is superior to living and being lied to. Besides, in lying to them you are saying they are incapable of handling the truth, which is insulting.

No, you're not saying that at all. Let's see if I can come up with some decent example situations here. I know these situations aren't quite possible (I'm not a medical person by any means) but they should get the point across.

I'm having a stroke. Now, I know that strokes are caused by blood clots that prevent blood from reaching my brain. The longer one waits to receive treatment, the more brain damage one ends up with, so I want the doctor to work quickly. Because I know what causes strokes, I know that my treatment should consist of a clot-busting drug, or something that thins my blood. Certainly the last thing I would want is a blood thickener.

Now, the doctor knows of some recent research that shows that a blood thickener actually helps more than the treatment I expect, but when he tells me this I get upset because I don't believe it could be true. The longer the doctor spends trying to convince me of the safety of the new drug, the more brain damage I get. At this point, I would prefer it if the doctor gave me the new drug even though I don't think I want in (in other words, lie to me) so I would get better, and then later (when I'm out of danger) explain what he did and why, along with some of the experiments that show this drug was better than the treatment I had been expecting. (Note: the doctor also knew that I wanted effective treatment.)

It wasn't that the doctor thought I was incapable of handling the truth; it was my lack of knowledge and lack of time that prevented him from telling me.

Now an example relating to the original topic, involving psychology more than physical treatment (this one will be even worse medically, almost ridiculous. Sorry about that.)

My sister has an infection of some sort. I know that this particular type of infection can be deadly, and her chances of surviving it are not good. She asks me if she's going to live through it. "Yes, Amy, you're going to get through this." Now Amy, believing that she's going to survive, is happier. Her brain releases more endorphins. The endorphins help her immune system kick into overdrive, and (with the help of some drugs as well) she fights off the infection. Without those extra endorphins (in other words, if I'd told her the truth instead of telling her she'd survive) she would have died.

And, of course, RationalBiker's got some excellent points as well. I do not think I would deal well with lots of pain. I really have no idea what it would take for someone to convince me that a treatment I thought was the wrong one was actually the right one when I'm in pain, or if I've had a major concussion, etc. I would prefer it if they just gave me the right treatment while telling me that it's the treatment I expected, and later, when I'm better, they can explain.

[DavidOdden]

A lie would only make a difference to an irrational person, not a rational person. So in lying you are catering top their irrationality.

First, you missed the point that I made, which was that in such an emergency, the abstract value of brutal truth is trumped by the physical harm. When man is again living in "metaphysically normal" conditions and has some minutes to reflect on matters, then truth would be totally appropriate. Second, if you have the purpose of saving a life rather than enforcing a particular psychological code of conduct on another, you are being irrational to pursue the latter as your primary goal when you've persuaded yourself that it's the former that you're interested in. I agree that if a person has no interest in saving a life and just wants to teach someone a moral lesson, you shouldn't lie -- in that circumstance you should just walk away and let them die, because they are not your responsibility.

Besides, as I said the patient has the right to know the truth because without it he cannot make rational decisions about whether or not to accept treatment, which he has the right to refuse.

I think I also addressed that: this isn't about the informed consent issue, it's about whether telling a man who has had the lower half of his body blown off that there's only a 40% that he will survive. The patient's only right to the truth comes from his right to refuse treatment.

[JMeganSnow]

How is telling someone "don't worry, you're going to be fine" a lie? Whether they live or die, it's still true: they stop being scared and hurt. Now, if you told someone "you're not going to die" in any situation, even if you just met them walking down the street, it'd be a lie because everyone dies sometime.

My advice: if you're worried about being absolutely honest in all situations (as you should be), learn to tell the truth in such a way as to give only the information you want. You don't want to tell them how badly they're hurt? Then don't. Tell them you need them to talk to you. Tell them you're a really good doctor. They're in shock, it's not like they're really listening to you all that closely.

There's a world of difference between saying, "Don't worry, no one ever dies from X injury" and saying "Don't worry, the hospital we're going to has the best staff in the state!" Both are comforting. The first one is false.

[DMR]

Wow, this thread got a lot more responses than I expected! Some replies:

punk: To a certain extent, the provider of the first aid is dealing with a person (the victim) for whom he does know better than the victim what is good for the victim, since the victim's injuries make it difficult for him to be rational. The attitude that you know better than other people what is good for them is not bad intrinsicly, but only insofar as it tends to produce wrong answers or poor recommendations.

DragonMaci: Regardless of whether or not lying to a victim in an emergency is wrong, it is certainly not wrong in the same way as lying to a patient who is ill but capable of rationality in the context of deciding among treatment options in a hospital setting. The right to refuse treatment does not make sense for an individual who is incapable of evaluating the treatment. Also, I assumed implicitly (and I thought, obviously) that we were not talking about a first aid provider treating a victim who the provider knew had signed a "Do Not Resuscitate" order.

I think you're making errors as a result of ignoring the explanation of principles. You cited the principles that whim-worship is wrong and that nothing can be gained from lying. But why is whim-worship wrong? Because insofar as you are rational, it won't do you any good. Likewise, only the rational gain nothing (or at least expect overall to gain nothing) from lying. But my point is that the victim in an emergency has had his ability to be rational damaged, the standard explanations for why certain classes of action are wrong no longer applies, because those explanations presuppose rationality.

Another example of the same thing (I think): you denounce lying to victims in an emergency as catering to irrationality, because lying could be good for them only if they were irrational. True, but then why is catering to irrationality wrong? Because in ordinary circumstances, it encourages more irrationality. But catering to the irrationality which is the result of some sort of modification of the individual in question's body (such as drugs or an injury) is not the same as catering to the irrationality which is the result of ideas which the individual has consciously accepted. I am not familiar with the specific arguments used, but I suspect that traditional explanations for the immorality of catering to irrationality are directed at catering to the second kind of irrationality, the irrationality which results from accepting bad ideas.

Imagine that you are dealing with some Phinneas Guage-like victim of a brain injury who is no longer capable of irrationality. Whether or not you cater to his irrationality will have no effect on how irrational he is, because he will be irrational no matter what happens, so your decision should only rest on whether catering to his irrationality is likely to benefit you. Now suppose you are dealing with a seriously injured friend who is rational most of the time. His injury prevents him from being rational now, so you ask yourself whether catering to his irrationality will benefit you. My first aid teacher would argue that under certain circumstances, catering to his irrationality increases the chances that he will go on to become rational again, and thus you would benefit.

JMeganSnow and others: You have suggested that rather than lie to the patient or tell him the brutal truth, you tell him something that calms him down but is not in fact a lie. Obviously, if you can have the best of both worlds like this, you should. However, I thought it was clear that my question asks us to consider situations where a lie is more effective than a calming truth. After all, if you can avoid the ethical dilemma so easily, then there is no point in considering it. And I suspect that the ethical dilemma cannot be so easily avoided, because I can see how certain types of lies would be effective. For example, suppose you have a person who has been shot and you are trying to treat him for shock while you wait for the ambulance. One thing I would consider doing in this case was assuring the victim that only a very small percentage of people with injuries similar in specific respects to theirs (i.e. similar caliber, wound location, angle of entry, etc.) actually die. This use of specific information would help to fool the victim into believing that I was an expert, and therefore if I said they were going to be okay, they should trust me, thus improving their state of mind and their chances of survival. Once they woke up after surgery, I would apologize to them for being dishonest.

[JMeganSnow]

JMeganSnow and others: You have suggested that rather than lie to the patient or tell him the brutal truth, you tell him something that calms him down but is not in fact a lie. Obviously, if you can have the best of both worlds like this, you should. However, I thought it was clear that my question asks us to consider situations where a lie is more effective than a calming truth.

That's like asking us to consider, hypothetically, a situation where little green men are controling us via beams of radiation from Mars. First you need to demonstrate that this situation happens AND that it happens with enough frequency to require a principle to govern it.

How much "more effective" are we talking here? 10%? 0.002%? How would you even measure that? Certainly your test cases would vary wildly and, given the number of factors that all come together in an emergency situation, it would be impossible or nearly so to factor out the various other influences at work and narrow it down to 1 person telling the patient a specific lie.

Let me put it like this: from a principled standpoint, your hypothetical is horse poo . . . as are most "emergency" hypotheticals along the same lines.

I postulate that there are some situations in which it would be "better" to tell the patient that they ARE going to die even if they probably AREN'T. Adrenalin can have some nice beneficial effects in an emergency situation, like getting someone to pull themselves back up over a cliff. I'm going to start a new school of patient treatment called the "worst case scenario" school in which you always tell the patient that the worst possible thing that could happen is going to happen with absolute certainty. People would come into my medical clinic with a splinter and be told they were going to get an antibiotic-resistant form of tetanus and die. They'd be so indignant that their muscles would clench and fire the offending splinter across the room like a 20mm shell. Then I'd bill them hundreds of dollars for the privilege of pissing them off. It'd be great!

Edited June 11, 2007 by JMeganSnow

[DMR]

That's like asking us to consider, hypothetically, a situation where little green men are controling us via beams of radiation from Mars.

No it isn't, because we are all sure that little green men are not controlling us with beams of radiation, but we aren't all sure that there aren't any situations where a lie is more beneficial to a victim than the truth. Also, most people would be willing to give more credence to the claim that lying can help the injured in some cases than to the claim that we are being controlled by aliens. Surely you do not think that we are all fools to do so?

First you need to demonstrate that this situation happens AND that it happens with enough frequency to require a principle to govern it.

I disagree. I think it is enough that the event in question be possible, and at least not absurdly unlikely (i.e. it is within the scope of things which might matter to us). Also, if we agree that lying is a dominant strategy in this case, that is that any situation that would be helped by a calming truth would be helped by a lie, but in principle a lie might help in a situation where a calming truth wouldn't (for example, where the victim is in a pessimistic frame of mind), then we could conclude that lying was the best move in the situation without having to determine how likely the event that a lie was better than a calming truth was.

How much "more effective" are we talking here? 10%? 0.002%? How would you even measure that? Certainly your test cases would vary wildly and, given the number of factors that all come together in an emergency situation, it would be impossible or nearly so to factor out the various other influences at work and narrow it down to 1 person telling the patient a specific lie.

Just because demonstrating the effect of medical procedures or therapies is hard doesn't mean we can't do it. For example, we could group cases into types of injuries, and then measure the effectiveness of lying on victims with certain classes of injuries. Of course, there are all kinds of issues that come up in designing an experiment to test this claim, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

I postulate that there are some situations in which it would be "better" to tell the patient that they ARE going to die even if they probably AREN'T.

You might well be right, in which case just as doctors study which medicines cure which diseases, they might also want to know which situations call for lies, and of those situations, which kinds of lies. The claim that you ought to lie one way under certain circumstances in no way implies that you ought not to lie another way under different circumstances.

[intellectualammo]

Just to follow up on my comment earlier. I actually was having a great discussion with a friend of mine at work tonight. She used to be an EMT, and she told me that she and they(the station she worked for) never purposely lied to the patients in the truck, nor advocate doing so, but said things that were right along the lines of the one that I had thought of before...hmmmm...more reason why she's my friend... She said that she usually is the one directing the questions, calming then down, telling them that they are here to do everything they can for them, "My job is to get you to the hospital...and I'm very very good at my job..." "I'm going to fight through this with you, and when we get to the hospital, there will be an army there ready to fight for you..." and so forth. She even told me about the infants life she saved...which was so touching... I also found out that her niece is a published poet...

[JMeganSnow]

No it isn't, because we are all sure that little green men are not controlling us with beams of radiation, but we aren't all sure that there aren't any situations where a lie is more beneficial to a victim than the truth. Also, most people would be willing to give more credence to the claim that lying can help the injured in some cases than to the claim that we are being controlled by aliens. Surely you do not think that we are all fools to do so?

So you're saying that the fact that more people believe something necessarily means that it is more true and deserves more consideration? Yeah, right. Pull the other one, it has bells on. There are a hell of a lot of people willing to "give credence" to the claim that socialism is good for people, that doesn't make it any more true than it already is.

Basically, all your claims are completely arbitrary and deserve exactly as much "credence" as the idea of little green men from mars.

[dan_edge]

Interesting thread. To sum up my opinions:

If I am the patient, and it's truly an emergency, then lie to me all you want to calm me down. If Kelly was hurt and was freaking out, I would tell her she's going to be fine no matter how she looked. I would try to comfort her and calm her down. That said, I don't see how lying about specifics would be necessary.

As for the doctor lying to the patient about a treatment that the patient doesn't understand: If I were the doctor, then I would lie if I thought it would save the patient's life. As for a violation of rights, I think about it from the judge's perspective if such a case went to court. If the patient really wanted to die, then maybe he could sue the doctor for the cost of doctor-assisted suicide, plus additional damages for pain and suffering. If the patient really wanted to live, and the doctor gave him a life-saving treatment against his wishes, and then the patient sued the doctor, then I would never allow the case to even get to court. If the case did make it to court, then I would have the patient pay for the doctor's legal expenses, tell him he's a fool, and throw him out of my courtroom.

--Dan Edge