Truth Telling

Why do people tell the truth?

We put a value on knowledge We put a value on relationships

Difficult to decide what to do if we don't know what's real

We want to trust what people say to us, and we put a value on the truth in of itself.

We can assume a prima facie duty to tell the truth.

Consequentialism and Truth Telling

Typicallly telling the truth brings about the best consequences. Even more important in rule consequentialism.

Deceptions are usually uncovered, and there's the consequence of loss of trust. That may be a consequence for you, or for the group you belong to. If patients don't trust doctors they won't come to them, and there'll be negative consequences.

Deceptions' consequences can exist on a scale. From mild suffering all the way to death.

Under consequentialism, if the consequences of that lie are better than telling the truth, it may be acceptable.

Deontologists

Do not lie is a rational principle, as lying would be treating others to means to our ends. I will lie when it suits my interests isn't universalizable, as it would make the idea of "truth" meaningless

Prima facie deontologists may say being honest is important, but it might not always be the MOST important.

And you are denying somone's autonomous nature if lying to them. You're stopping them acting autonomously.

Virtue ethics and truth telling

Aristotle would say your life of good character, would have that telling the truth is part of having a good character.

You can't really live the good life if you lie to people all the time. Although "practical wisdom", may lead you to lie as it's more beneficial.

It's not about being honest at all costs.

What is a lie?

It's a statement that: 1) Is false 2) and the speaker knows it to be false 3) and the speaker says it with the intention of making someone believe that falsehood.

That's why stories, tv, etc aren't lies.

The point three is the really important one.

Other non-truth-telling

Not lying, but deliberate misleading.

You can say something that non-false, but misleading. 1) Is not falst 2) is believed to be non false 3) Is said with the intention of causing the hearer to believe something else that may be false

Another statement can also be misleading, but neither true or false. "don't you trust me?" - we can place a burden of responsibility onto the listener, accusing them of being cynical, etc

A third type of misleading would be, deliberate non-disclosure You could have a duty (the duty is an important aspect here) to disclose information to Y, and you fail to disclose that to Y. You don't have to share everything you know all the time, but some relationships can cause this duty of disclosure. Trying to work out whether or not there is that relationship can be difficult.

What's the moral difference between different types of non truth telling

Acts V Omissions

Lying is an ACTION, but non-disclosure is an OMISSION

Are we more responsible for what we do? Or for what we don't do? So is ommision less bad than lying?

But omitting is still a choice. so is an omission really any different to an act?

Trust Telling

Lying brings down the biggest break down in trust. In the case of non disclosure you can still believe what people DO say, just wonder about what they don't say. Misleaders can claim that the misunderstanding was not their fault, and non disclosers can argue there was no duty to disclose.

Lies are easier to find out than misleaders.

Gullibility

Is it not the responsibility of someone else for being misled? Most people would argue that the fault of deceipt is with the deceiver, not with the decieved.

This aspect is very relevant to informed consent.

Why should we tell the truth?

We could argue to respect autonomy - treating a person as an end in themselves. Not telling truth would be disrespectful and undermines their agency.

We could argue on a case of welfare - the patient generally knows whats good for them more than the HCP does

If patients lose trust in health professionals ability to tell the truth, this will cause them to lose trust in us generally, this will prevent them approaching HCPS

Why shouldn't we tell the truth?

But sometimes, the truth isn't known, it's too complex or uncertain. (Of course you can give a simple version of the truth without lying, it may withold certain bits, but it's not actively lying)

From a non-maleficence view, telling the truth may be too painful. However can we really make a judgement about "happy ignorance" is for others? Is that just people taking advantage of people in lesser positions of power?

We might have conflicting duties. An obligation conflict. The duty of confidentiality may be in conflict with a duty of truth telling.