Informed Consent and Disclosure for Terminally Ill Patients
This paper examines the ethical dilemma clinicians face when deciding whether to provide full medical disclosure to terminally ill patients who may use that information to facilitate suicide. It discusses the foundational principles of informed consent and beneficence as they have evolved in American medicine, explores the legal and ethical basis for full disclosure, and analyzes the concept of therapeutic privilege as a justifiable exception. Drawing on empirical studies showing that up to 50% of terminally ill patients have not been informed of their diagnoses, and on legal precedents supporting the right to self-determination, the paper recommends that such cases be evaluated individually by ethics review boards, balancing the patient's fundamental right to information against potential harm.
- Introduction: Central dilemma of disclosure to terminally ill patients
- Informed Consent and the Right to Self-Determination: Legal and ethical basis for full patient disclosure
- Beneficence and Therapeutic Privilege: When withholding information may be justified
- Family Requests and the Challenges of Withholding Information: Complications when families request non-disclosure
- Empirical Evidence on Disclosure Practices: Survey data on actual terminal diagnosis disclosure rates
- Ethical Review and Recommendations: Case-by-case ethics board review recommended
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper frames a narrow, high-stakes clinical dilemma clearly at the outset, making the ethical tension between disclosure and potential harm immediately apparent.
- It integrates legal precedent, philosophical principles (beneficence, autonomy), and empirical survey data, giving the argument a multi-layered foundation that is stronger than any single source alone.
- The paper acknowledges competing perspectives — including family requests for non-disclosure and the reality of clinical practice — rather than presenting a one-sided argument, which strengthens its credibility.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of ethical principle analysis alongside empirical evidence. Rather than relying solely on abstract moral reasoning, it grounds claims in cited studies (e.g., Young et al., 2011; Tan et al., 1993) and references legal history, showing how to build an applied ethics argument that is both philosophically coherent and empirically supported.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by posing the central clinical-ethical question, then systematically introduces and defines the governing principles: informed consent, beneficence, and therapeutic privilege. It next examines practical complications — including family-requested non-disclosure — before presenting survey data on actual disclosure rates. It concludes with a policy-oriented recommendation that ethics review boards evaluate cases individually, tying the empirical and theoretical threads together.
Introduction
Should clinicians provide medical information to terminally ill patients when they know or suspect that such information will be used to facilitate their suicide? This dilemma affects patients, their families, physicians, and other medical professionals alike. Informed consent embodies the idea that, as a matter of ethics and law, patients are entitled to be exposed to all of the relevant information that would influence and guide their decision-making concerning what treatment — if any — they should follow. The issues surrounding full disclosure, beneficence, and therapeutic privilege as they relate to patients and their families are discussed herein, along with recommendations regarding how such cases should be conceptualized.
References
Monagle, J. F. (1998). Health care ethics: Critical issues for the 21st century. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publications.
Paterick, T. J., Carson, G. V., Allen, M. C., & Paterick, T. E. (2008). Medical informed consent: General considerations for physicians. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 83(3), 313–319.
Russell, B. J., & Ward, A. M. (2011). Deciding what information is necessary: Do patients with advanced cancer want to know all the details? Cancer Management and Research, 23, 191–199.
Shatz, D. (1986). Autonomy, beneficence and informed consent: Rethinking the connections. Cancer Investigation, 4, 257–269.
Tan, T. K. S., Teo, F. C. P., Wong, K., & Lim, H. L. (1993). Cancer: To tell or not to tell? Singapore Medical Journal, 34, 202–203.
World Medical Association. (1997). Declaration of Helsinki: Recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. Reprinted in Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 925–926.
Yun, Y. H., Kwon, Y. C., Lee, M. K., Lee, W. J., Jung, K. H., Do, Y. R., Kim, S., Heo, D. S., Choi, J. S., & Park, S. Y. (2010). Experiences and attitudes of patients with terminal cancer and their family caregivers toward the disclosure of terminal illness. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28(11), 1950–1957.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.