Deontological vs. Consequentialist Ethics: Should a Physician Withhold the Truth from an Anxious Cancer Patient at the Family’s Request?

Abstract

Everyday life inevitably involves confronting ethical dilemmas, especially in situations that are complex and interconnected with roles, relationships, and the consequences of decisions. This article explores one such dilemma: when the family of a cancer patient requests that the physician not disclose the diagnosis to the patient, who suffers from severe anxiety. The study analyzes this issue through two major ethical theories—deontology and consequentialism. Findings reveal that deontology values the intrinsic morality of actions regardless of outcomes; for example, telling the truth is morally right even if it causes harm. In contrast, consequentialism bases moral judgment on outcomes; withholding the truth can be considered ethically justifiable if it results in better psychological well-being for the patient. The comparison of these ethical frameworks enhances the understanding of moral decision-making and encourages a more comprehensive evaluation of ethical values in real-life contexts.