The Dilemma Of Telling The Diagnosis To Terminal Ill Patients Essay Sample For College

One of the difficulties of the doctor’s work, not to mention the technical part, is telling the patients and their loved ones about the diagnosis. The matter gets even worse when the patient has a severe disorder and is terminally ill. People in Asian culture believe that it is better to retain the patients uninformed. However, it is ethically wrong to deprive them unaware. The professional faces a dilemma of a decision to inform or to keep the diagnosis secret. This essay aims to consider arguments for both and make a subsequent conclusion.

The doctor should keep loyalty to the cultural beliefs and not tell the patient about the probable outcomes of his or her situation. As Murray (2012) has noted, it is difficult to achieve the patient’s full understanding of the diagnosis, its possible outcome, and complications. In such a way, it might be reasonable to disclose the information partially or even fully keep it, as the patient’s faith in treatment and recovery can psychologically help to improve his or her condition (Edwin, 2008). The doctor can significantly improve the health of patients with mental health problems by giving them a positivity dose (Beltran-Aroca et al., 2016). Moreover, the grieved patient can refuse to take medications as the feeling of despair can distract them from active treatment. All in all, non-disclosure of the patient’s state can be a reasonable measure in treatment structure.

On the other hand, violating the patient’s right to know his condition can be immoral and even illegal. According to Blightman et al. (2014), the court can punish the doctors if they keep their terminally ill patients uninformed. Murray (2012) summarised that legally the doctor needs to disclose the following information: the condition that is being treated, the nature and the mode of treatment, the expected results, possible risks, complications, and consequences. Furthermore, given the patients’ feelings, disclosure of the information can help to build trustful relationships and a conducive atmosphere for improving the health condition. As a result, informing the patient about his or her diagnosis is extremely important.

There is a way to balance the two contrary positions above. Firstly, the doctor should make a detailed explanation of the patient’s condition with the possible treatment. This measure is essential because the patient should trust his doctor instead of thinking to consult with multiple doctors and wasting his precious time (Blightman et al., 2014). Secondly, the doctor should be able to evaluate the level of illness severity and choose what non-disclosure of information can help to keep the patient’s mindset in a positive mood. The doctor can achieve this by consulting and close cooperation with the psychologist (Murray, 2012). Finally, the professional should consider appealing to the family and close friends of the patient. This method is especially crucial for patients who are reluctant to treatment. If the patient does not believe in a bright future, and any improvement of his condition, the effectiveness of all other measures can become pointless (Beltran-Aroca et al., 2016). The named steps altogether are a subtle way to handle the dilemma.

To conclude, doctors always struggle with the choice to inform or keep the information secret. There are both moral and legal sides of this problem. Generally, it is better to disclose the details of the patient’s illness history partially and keep the information that can be detrimental. The joint work of the doctor and psychologist helps to recover quickly.


Beltran-Aroca, C.M., Girela-Lopez, E., & Collazo-Chao, E. (2016). Confidentiality breaches in clinical practice: what happens in hospitals?. BMC Med Ethics, 17(52):44-56.

Blightman, K., Griffiths, S.E., & Danbury, C. (2014). Patient confidentiality: when can a breach be justified? Continuing Education in Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain, 14(2), 52-56.

Edwin, A.K. (2008). Don’t Lie but Don’t Tell the Whole Truth: The Therapeutic Privilege – Is It Ever Justified? Ghana Medical Journal, 42(4), 156-161. Web.

Murray, B. (2012). Informed Consent: What Must a Physician Disclose to a Patient? American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, 14(7), 563-566.

Crime Rate: The Recidivism Rate


The rate at which an act is done repeatedly by a given person is termed the recidivism rate. This act is usually preceded by corrective or discouraging attempts on the individual doing the given activity and is often used to apply to crime and penal attempts. Speaking from the habitual use of the term, it can be argued that it’s the rate of apprehension of individuals for the crime committed more than once. Here, the repetitive offenders are subjected to tougher penalties as an attempt to break the habit of committing the given crime and also to discourage others from making the crime a habit. (Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2009)

Main Body

The varied ways that the crime repetition is computed include re-apprehension and re-imprisonment among others. Another tool that can be used to compute the same information includes the use of reports on the behavior of the individual from the neighborhood. All these sources need to be subjected to legislation so as to ensure that the computation is accurate in monitoring the re-commission of the crime from records as some go unnoticed and the computation may be affected by falsehood, concealing, and forgetfulness. (National Institute of Justice, 2008)

The argued recidivism rate of 0% is questionable as there is no information given to support the statement and the methods used to arrive at the conclusion. This is so because the record-keeping of crime needs to be accurate with reference to the time interval taken into consideration. This process may require that the available records be in harmony with the information at the grassroots of unreported crimes among other factors that can make the compilation faulty. (Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2009)

Further, the reporting authority should be neutral to the justice system so as to avoid professional bias among other misinformation. Also, the fact that there is no accountability of the method used to zero rates the recidivism rate makes the statement further questionable. As a point of argument, the Boot camp training should have been used together with other corrective measures like the use of intermediate houses; detention under supervision, manual labor, and other penal systems to help realize the given situation and which may not have been accounted for in within the interval. (National Institute of Justice, 2008)

To rely on the recidivism rate of 0%, there may be further needed for the collection of the data to be done by different authorities working at the different levels of the society and which may also need to have different interests and focus so as to overcome the risk of falseness, selfishness, and bias that may be geared towards different motives. The data collection system also needs to be much wider-reaching so as to avoid the prejudices and use of assumptions or generalization of information collected from a small group to represent the larger group. (National Institute of Justice, 2008)

Taking into account the time interval that the data is representing should further be accompanied by taking into account the prevailing conditions that may fuel crime. These factors may include the level of unemployment and inflation rates that may have an increasing or decreasing effect on the crime recidivism rate. (Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2009)


Taking into account the sensitivity of the study of criminology, extra care needs to be put in the reporting system and channels as the information given are useful in examining the efficiency of the penal systems, and may also be useful in general planning taking into account the safety levels given by the authorities. The information is also useful in planning state funding so as to major in the areas that need further attention. An example of this is the allocation of funds to recruit and employ more penal staff or security staff in the cases of a drop in security levels.

Work Cited

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. Performance Measurement Reports. 2009. Web.

National Institute of Justice. Measuring Recidivism. 2008. Web.

Digital Tools And Social Behavior

In modern society, people are connected via smartphones and other digital devices making face-to-face contact practically rare. The authors of the article raised an important question of whether being frequently connected to the digital world may dwindle major behavior approaches (Kushlev et al., 2019). Certain approach behaviors such as smiling at strangers are diminishing because engagement between people seldom happens in the real social world (Kushlev et al., 2019). One-on-one interaction between people has greatly declined due to technological innovation.

The researchers used 169 undergraduate students from British Columbia University who had signed consent forms to participate in the study. The samples included 62% same-gender dyads, and 38% mixed-gender dyads. Two participants who were unacquainted with each other were booked for the study session, and they were assigned to the phoneless or phone condition. They were left alone in a room to have a conversation during which their dialogue was videotaped without their knowledge (Kushlev et al., 2019). They had a natural discussion without knowing that they were under study.

The findings supported the hypothesis of the researchers because the phoneless pair exhibited reduced smiles in the course of their conversation. However, the participants in the phone situation exhibited more facial beams. The findings, therefore, show that smartphones have significantly influenced the way people engage with each other (Kushlev et al., 2019). The findings of this study show that the behaviors of individuals change based on the situation they are open to. People are no longer interrelating with each other physically but through communication devices.

Based on their findings, scholars had formulated a theory. It says that exposure to social networks and other devices such as smartphones may reduce the social engagement between individuals (Kushlev et al., 2019). The researchers endeavored to show that phones may hamper the formation of social relationships and other exchanges which built social capital (Kushlev et al., 2019). Since people will always use digital devices and other information technology tools, how is society likely to look like in a few years to come?

error: Content is protected !!