The three arguments that Bok identifies as reasons medical workers justify lying to patients are: some people do not know enough information or have sufficient knowledge to successfully understand medical terminology and information correctly and thus never are capable of receiving the whole truth regardless of being informed, some people do not desire to be told of their condition or options if they do not have a positive outlook or present a positive opportunity, and finally for some people the news that their situation may be anything but optimal will lead to negative results on their condition, either worsening it or entirely deteriorating the possibility of redemption.
To begin with, Bok finds the reasoning that patients do not know enough…show more content… In summary, Bok believes that there is a way to always give the patient the truth without demolishing their ability to hold hope and therefore the truth should always be the chosen…show more content… Bok acknowledges that there are circumstances that arise that the truth could yield the wrong results; nonetheless, to say lying is justifiable is still wrong because there is a way to properly inform patients in a positive manner. Furthermore, there is a difference between telling the whole truth and ‘truthfulness’ according to Bok. This distinction is made to prove that withholding information is not the truth but merely being ‘truthful’, therefore cannot be justified as means to communicating with patients because there may already be a rift in the comprehension between patient and physician so by purely being ‘truthful’ more complications could
