SHOULD DOCTORS TELL?

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8915, 7 September 1907, Page 1

SHOULD DOCTORS TELL?

A point' of very great interest to the general public concerning the advisability or the non-advisability of medical men tolling .their patients their true condition if they aro suffering from mortal sickness was raised by the Daily Mail. A chemist’s assistant, living at Altrincham, Cheshire, was informed hy his doctocr that lie was suffering from consumption. Shortly afterwards ho committed suicide, and at the inquest his wife said lie had been depressed in consequence of this knowledge. The jury expressed the opinion that “the doctorsnould have kept the information to himself, because it had worried the deceased. ’ ’

What is the duty of the physician or surgeon in such cases? A loading authority at one of the principal London hospitals informed a representative of the Daily Mail that there was one rule which was invariably followed, both in hospitals and private practice. “Wo take jnst that course which is best for the patient. Wo do not toll a patient that he is suffering from a disease which will prove fatal, but we always toll his wife or his parents, or his near relatives. They can impart the information gently later la other cases, where the disease is not likely to bo fatal, wo tell the patient, and no one else.” Hero is a list of diseases which it is not advisable to toil the patient what ho is suffering from : —Cancer, consumption, diabetes, general paralysis of the insane, cerebral tumors. “Nor would a patient be told he was suffering from heart disease, although ho .would bo told that lie had a weak heart, and that ho must toko this and that precaution. Of, course, there are exceptions to every rule. A business man, who knows that something is the matter, may tell his doctor that if his days aro numbered, it is vitally important, in the interests of his family, that ho should know the truth. In such a case it may bo well to toll him the real facts.”