Final answer:
Healthcare providers must navigate ethical and legal duties when disclosing a poor cancer prognosis to a patient, considering the potential distress against the need for honesty. Act and Rule Utilitarianism offer contrasting approaches to this dilemma. Additionally, providers should be attentive to the patient's emotional journey through the stages of grief and provide options for hospice care and advance care planning.
Step-by-step explanation:
When a patient is diagnosed with cancer and the prognosis is very poor, healthcare providers face difficult ethical and legal obligations. They must balance the need for honesty with the potential distress that such news can cause. Under the Act Utilitarianism approach, a provider might consider withholding the truth to prevent immediate distress to the patient and their family, as this option could lead to less overall pain and more short-term happiness.
However, this conflicts with ethical standards that emphasize patient autonomy and informed consent. Conversely, Rule Utilitarianism might support truth-telling by considering the long-term benefits and the importance of maintaining trust in the healthcare system.
Patients often experience the five stages of grief described by Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, which include denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. The stigma of cancer can exacerbate these reactions. Comprehensive care for terminal illness may encompass hospice care, which focuses on comfort and quality of life, as well as advance care planning with instruments like living wills and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders.