Ethical debate: Truth, the first casualty Deadly charades Communication is a vital part of care Doctors and patients should be fellow travellers
- 20 June 1998
- Vol. 316 (7148) , 1890-1893
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7148.1890
Abstract
# Truth, the first casualty {#article-title-2} In the past, patients with cancer were often not told the truth about their condition. This would be considered unacceptable nowadays. Yet Mitzi Blennerhassett's account of her treatment for anal cancer shows that truth can still be one of the firstcasualties of a system of medical education and training that may dehumanise patients … and doctors. Here a cancer specialistand a former professor of general practice comment on Ms Blennerhassett's experience. # Deadly charades {#article-title-3} ![][1] Being fed “tailored” truth and outright lies was psychological torment I felt continually humiliated, manipulated, out of control. The need for truth became an obsession. The necessity to prove competence in order to obtain information became a barrier to communication. They withheld my rights: I confiscated theirs. With integrity eroded, status erased, I felt as though I was living through One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.1 Smiles deceived, reassurances deluded, suspicions were not shared. But misplaced kindness became brutality as the bad news broke. And the deceit hurt. The diagnosis was squamous carcinoma of the anal canal.“Basaloid” was written in my notes. Passing from surgeon to oncologist, treatment options reduced from three to two and my“hernia” changed category. I was not informed they were about to take a biopsy specimen. Silence intensified as they prepared a needle for the lump in my groin. Suspicions confirmed, I gave my“informed” consent over the phone. Side effects, I was told, were“nausea, tiredness, diarrhoea and wind.” Nobody mentioned pain. Nobody said this was pioneering treatment (fluorouracil, mitomycin, and radiotherapy (85 Gy)).2Nobody mentioned risks or long term effects yet only I could have assessed the full implications of these. Recently, with great persistence (impossible when debilitated), I learned that high dose radiotherapy causes progressive damage in anal cancer, giving a 70-75% probability of late failure. (The remaining 25% of patients presumably … [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gifKeywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Information Needs and Decisional Preferences in Women With Breast CancerJAMA, 1997
- Epidermoid anal cancer: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial of radiotherapy alone versus radiotherapy, 5-fluorouracil, and mitomycin. UKCCCR Anal Cancer Trial Working Party. UK Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research.1996
- Epidermoid anal cancer: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial of radiotherapy alone versus radiotherapy, 5-fluorouracil, and mitomycinThe Lancet, 1996
- Information needs of cancer patients in west Scotland: cross sectional survey of patients' viewsBMJ, 1996
- What are the information priorities for cancer patients involved in treatment decisions? An experienced surrogate study in Hodgkin's diseaseBritish Journal of Cancer, 1996
- Increasing patient involvement in choosing treatment for early breast cancerCancer, 1995
- Psychological outcomes of different treatment policies in women with early breast cancer outside a clinical trial.BMJ, 1990
- Controversies in the management of non-small cell lung cancer: the results of an expert surrogate studyRadiotherapy and Oncology, 1990
- Information and Participation Preferences Among Cancer PatientsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1980
- PATIENTS' AWARENESS AND DESIRE FOR INFORMATION ABOUT DIAGNOSED BUT UNDISCLOSED MALIGNANT DISEASEThe Lancet, 1976