To Tell or to Tell.

Otago Witness, Issue 2975, 22 March 1911, Page 76

To Tell or to Tell.

How much a. patient ought to know about his own condition is a question which must bo left to the discretion of his doctor and relatives; and the former must decide, in conference with the more responsible of the latter, what is wisest. The nature of the disease and the temperament of the patient are the chief factors to- ba considered, but in chronic infectious complaints the safety otf ether membars of the household has also to be remembered. Thus, in all forms of consumption (tuberculosis) enough must be told to secure the patient's- co-operation in securing the destruction of the germs which emanate from him. The knowledge may possibly depress him, but the harm done is trivial by comparison with that wrought by the old kindly secrecy, which allowed such patients to sleep with the healthy, eat ar.d drink from utensils, with no precaution for the common safety, speak into folk's faces at close range without fear, expectorate into handkerchiefs, open spittoons and other places, and die without a thought of disinfection—a, custom which has exterminated families and made this disease the scourge it is.

With chronic heart disease, a timely warning may enable a wise patient to prolong his days to, or nearly to the average span; while a judicious secrecy may bo almost as beneficial in the case of a nervous, apprehensive patient. For diabetes and chronic kidney mischief the truth must be told, with the assurance that safety and length of days depend mainly upon' conformity to rules laid down by the physician in charge. In cancer and many other diseases each case must be considered in its own features.