[Ethics in clinical routine care: example of prognosis information].

OBJECTIVES: The article discusses from an ethical point of view the question whether a physician should tell the patient the whole truth about a poor prognosis. From a legal viewpoint, the therapeutic privilege gives physicians in most countries the right to limit information, if they are concerned that this information will severely harm the patient.

METHODS AND RESULTS: An overview about empirical studies, especially surveys of physicians and patients, shows that most patients always wish to know their prognosis, while physicians would less often tell the whole truth. Physicians explain their attitudes by referring to the ethical principles of nonmaleficience and beneficience. These principles are apparently in conflict with the principles of veracity and respect of patient autonomy. However, it can be shown that this conflict does not persist when empirical data about consequences of truthful information are considered: telling the truth seems not to have negative, but rather positive consequences on the overall well-being of the patient. After having summarized the empirical studies that have examined the consequences of truthful information about severe and incurable diseases, the article argues for always telling patients the truth if they want to know it.

CONCLUSION: Many conflicts in medical ethics are between prima facie principles. In cases where the principles of beneficience and nonmaleficience are used in the argumentation, some of the conflicts can be eliminated when the ethical judgment is made on a thorough empirical basis, as shown by the example of truth-telling about prognosis.