WUHAN UNIVERSITY School of Economics & Management

Organizational Management Case2 Withholding the truth

Withholding The Truth

Is Withholding the truth acceptable? Is it as bad as lying?
Angel Beltran Castro 5/1/2012

This small essay analyses a philosophically interesting question that have remain a conundrum to people all over the fields of study specially to philosophers and sociologists alike , given the tension between Non-Malfeasance and the Prima Facie wrongness of lying

Withholding The Truth May 1, 2012 Questions: Case 2-Withholding the truth (30) Bill is the manager at a gaming company in Macau, and he is responsible for outsourcing the production of a highly anticipated new game. Because his company is a giant in the industry, numerous companies are trying to get the bid. One of them offers him some kickbacks if he gives that firm the bid, but ultimately, it is up to his boss to decide on the company. He doesnt mention the incentive, but he pushes his boss to give the bid to the company that offered him the kickback. 1. Do you think Bills withholding the truth as bad as lying? 2. Why or why not?

In order to better understand these Questions we have to understand what is the difference between Lies of commission (telling a lie) and lies of omission (withholding the truth)

Lies Defined: 1. To make a statement that one knows to be false, especially with the intend to deceive. 2. To give a false impression. 3. Anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression. Variations of the Lie: 1. Derail: To change the subject of discussion in order to avoid the truth. ones questionable actions. 2. Confuse: quibble or confuse the issue, or deliberately use ambiguity in order to deceive or mislead. 3. Misinform: To invent or perpetrate a false story with the intent to deceive or mislead. (For example, one might feign being offended in order to stop a conversation about

Withholding The Truth May 1, 2012 The Lie of Omission: A lie of omission is to remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up. A lie of omission is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person's capacity to make an informed decision. The Truth About Lies: A lie is not in the words, or lack of words; it's in the intention of the deceiver. The Biggest Lie About Lies -- A Lie of Omission Is Not a Lie! A lie of omission is the most insidious, most pervasive, and most common lie on the entire planet. Commonly, those who use this type of lie, have conned themselves into believing that to intentionally remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up is not a lie at all. In spite of overwhelming evidence that their silence deceives, misleads, and often causes u ntold grief and misery, they refuse to speak the truth. The Inevitable Consequences: There is also the common misconception that intentional Both reap the same deception by silence has no consequences. Lies of commission (telling a lie) and lies of omission (withholding the truth) are both acts of intention deception. the universe.' If lies of omission are so self-destructive, one has to ask, Why would anyone use them?" Here's your answer. consequences. What liars by omission do not understand is that one cannot escape the laws of

WE LIKE TO LIE AND SOME OF US ARE GOOD AT IT, it is the conundrum of human nature, we will try to understand and wont. Lets try and analyze and see if we can reach a conclusion

Truth-telling and Withholding Information in the Health care world. When physicians communicate with patients, being honest is an important way to foster trust and show respect for the patient. Patients place a great deal of trust in their physician, and may feel that trust is misplaced if they discover or perceive lack of honesty and candor by the physician. Yet there are situations in which the truth can be disclosed in too brutal a fashion, or may have a terrible impact on the occasional patient.

Withholding The Truth May 1, 2012 Do patients want to know the truth about their condition? Contrary to what many physicians have thought in the past, a number of studies have demonstrated that patients do want their physicians to tell them the truth about diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy. For instance, 90% of patients surveyed said they would w ant to be told of a diagnosis of cancer or Alzheimer's disease. Similarly, a number of studies of physician attitudes reveal support for truthful disclosure. For example, whereas in 1961 only 10% of physicians surveyed believed it was correct to tell a patient of a fatal cancer diagnosis, by 1979 97% felt that such disclosure was correct. How much do patients need to be told? In addition to fostering trust and demonstrating respect, giving patients truthful information helps them to become informed participants in important health care decision. Thus, patients should be told all relevant aspects of their illness, including the nature of the illness itself, expected outcomes with a reasonable range of treatment alternatives, risks and benefits of treatment, and other information deemed relevant to that patient's personal values and needs. Treatment alternatives that are not medically indicated or appropriate need not be revealed. Facts that are not important to the patients ability to be an informed particip ant in decision making, such as results of specific lab tests, need not be told to the patient. Also, complete and truthful disclosure need not be brutal; appropriate sensitivity to the patient's ability to digest complicated or bad news is important. What if the truth could be harmful? There are many physicians who worry about the harmful effects of disclosing too much information to patients. Assuming that such disclosure is done with appropriate sensitivity and tact, there is little empirical evidence to support such a fear. If the physician has some compelling reason to think that disclosure would create a real and predictable harmful effect on the patient, it may be justified to withhold truthful information.

Withholding The Truth May 1, 2012 What if the patient's family asks me to withhold the truth from the patient? Often families will ask the physician to withhold a terminal or serious diagnosis or prognosis from the patient. Usually, the family's motive is laudable; they want to spare their loved one the potentially painful experience of hearing difficult or painful facts. These fears are usually unfounded, and a thoughtful discussion with family members, for instance reassuring them that disclosure will be done sensitively, will help allay these concerns. In unusual situations, f amily members may reveal something about the patient that causes the physician to worry that truthful disclosure may create real and predictable harm, in which case withholding may be appropriate. These occasions, however, are rare. When is it justified for me to withhold the truth from a patient? There are two main situations in which it is justified to withhold the truth from a patient. As noted above, if the physicians has compelling evidence that disclosure will cause real and predictable harm, truthful disclosure may be withheld. Examples might include disclosure that would make a depressed patient actively suicidal. This judgment, often referred to as the "therapeutic privilege," is important but also subject to abuse. Hence it is important to invoke this only in those instances when the harm seems very likely, not merely hypothetical. The second circumstance is if the patient him- or herself states an informed preference not to be told the truth. Some patients might ask that the physician instead consult family members, for instance. In these cases, it is critical that the patient give thought to the implications of abdicating their role in decision making. If they chose to make an informed decision not to be informed, however, this preference should be respected. Caught in Their Own Lies: Here's a strange fact about lies and about the telling of false stories that you may not be aware of. The quote from Adolph Hitler, "Tell a lie often enough, loud enough, and long enough, and people will believe you." applies to the liar as well as to his intended target. There's a part of the human psyche that tends to accept that which is repeatedly put into the mind. As a result, the peddler of lies very often reaches a point where he/she believes that his/her lies are actually the truth. Very frequently, loving well-meaning people get caught in these false stories and perpetuate them.
4

Withholding The Truth May 1, 2012

Mark Twain
From his essay: "On the Decay of the Art of Lying" Among other common lies, we have the silent lie -- the deception which one conveys by simply keeping still and concealing the truth. Many obstinate truth-mongers indulge in this dissipation, imagining that if they speak no lie, they lie not at all.

Conclusion: And so do I think Bills withholding the truth as bad as lying? If you were in a state of extreme emotional stress and you had a very limited timeframe within which to make a critically important, highly emotional, completely irreversible, life-changing decision, and I intentionally withheld from you a vital piece of information. Which could significantly alter your decision, what would you call that? Technically, its a lie, a lie of omission. Why would you say that? Because that would be an attempt to deceive; it would be an attempt to subvert the truth; it would be an attempt to manipulate me into altering my behavior to suit your desires; and, most importantly, it would also be a gross violation of my right of self-determination. By denying bills boos his right to self-determination, bill is deceiving himself and everybody, truth he has a good reason and It wouldnt probably affect the company or would it? I leave with that question.