Reply to comment

As I go back, and reflect on the discussion that we had in class, one thing that I have been thinking a lot about is the difference between reality and ideality. Ideally, all doctors should be able to objectively present their patients with all the pertinent facts, while refraining from making any visible judgment with regards to their patient’s decisions. In such a world, patients would never have to ask a doctor for their opinion, because everyone, even the most uneducated of patients, will be able to take the facts presented to them about their condition, and make an educated decision as to the proper course of treatment for them. However, realistically, this is not the case. No matter how well trained a doctor may be, it often impossible to remain objective, and not give any indication as to their opinions when it comes to a patient’s treatment. To make matters worse, many patients will specifically ask the doctor for their opinions, often due to the fact that the patient does not completely understand the facts presented to them, and they are afraid to make what may turn out to be the wrong decision. How can doctors be expected to present the facts impartially, and value-free, when they are constantly being asked for their opinions, in order to soothe the nerves of the patients, and reassure them that they are making the correct decision? While, in a perfect world, science should be an objective, value-free, and culture-independent method of investigation, in reality this is not possible. Whenever humans are involved, it is close to impossible for facts to be presented impartially, and once even a hint of personal opinion enters the equation, there is no longer any hope that a doctor or scientist can remain impartial. Thus, instead of asking ourselves whether doctors should remain impartial when it comes to presenting facts to their patients, we must ask whether doctors can.