[Imposing the truth on patients? The benefits and harms of information with the terminally ill].
In this paper arguments for and against the "radical information" of seriously ill patients are confronted. In Germany, following some actual court decisions, a clear tendency favours total information as a logical condition of the so-called "informed consent". It seems indispensable before any radical (not only life-threatening) intervention. However, for humanitarian reasons doctors should respect personal conditions and subjective circumstances which could influence both the extent and form of the information provided, not only in crucial situations but also in many everyday situations. Following the paternalistic tradition of Hufeland, informing the patient about the early stage of a deadly illness even seems to be rather cruel in some situations, e.g. with casual or "accidental" diagnoses, when the patient does not perceive any symptoms yet.
Bergdolt
Klaus
K
Institut für Geschichte und Ethik der Medizin, Universität zu Köln. bergdolt@uni-koeln.de
D001293:Attitude to Death; D006801:Humans; D010361:Patients / Q000523:psychology*; D013727:Terminal Care / Q000523:psychology*; D014342:Truth Disclosure