Elderly Cancer Patient Ponders Telling Loved Ones About Diagnosis
In a recent submission to The Ethicist, a 76-year-old cancer patient questioned whether it was wrong to keep the news of their diagnosis from their loved ones. The individual, who remains anonymous, explained that their doctor had informed them that the cancer they were treated for last year had returned and metastasized. They have since started a course of immunotherapy treatments that they hope will keep the cancer at bay for the next two years.
The patient’s main reason for not sharing this information with their wife, son, and friends is to avoid enduring two years of pity. Instead, they wish to continue enjoying life with their loved ones as they have always done and only break the news when the time comes.
The Ethicist responded by acknowledging that the decision to disclose the diagnosis ultimately rests with the individual. However, he suggested that living with such a secret can be isolating, and sharing the news with at least their wife and son might help relieve some of the burden. Moreover, the loved ones would want to feel that they did everything they could to support their family member during this time, and keeping them in the dark may leave them feeling confused and hurt if the patient’s health declines unexpectedly.
The Ethicist also pointed out that treatments can have side effects, and the patient’s condition could reveal itself much earlier than planned. By not sharing the facts, the patient would be denying their loved ones the chance to face the future together. It is essential for the patient to communicate their desires to their loved ones and let them know that they hope to continue living life as usual.
Readers responded to a previous column in The Ethicist, which addressed a different dilemma involving the purchase of an engagement ring. Many readers agreed with The Ethicist’s stance that deceiving one’s partner about the ring, as the letter writer proposed, would be disrespectful and establish a lack of trust in the relationship.
One reader suggested that the letter writer consider purchasing a vintage engagement ring instead, as buying pre-owned goods avoids contributing to harmful markets. This approach not only addresses environmental and ethical concerns but also adds a unique touch to the ring.
While some readers supported The Ethicist’s response, others questioned the bride-to-be’s insistence on a natural diamond. They argued that focusing on the type of stone rather than the connection between partners may indicate misplaced priorities.
Another reader highlighted that the concept of a diamond engagement ring was created by the diamond industry to boost sales. They emphasized that choosing an alternative stone or ring option does not diminish the meaning of the commitment between two people.
In conclusion, the anonymous cancer patient must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of sharing their diagnosis with loved ones. While they may wish to shield their loved ones from pity, it is crucial to consider the potential isolation and hurt that could arise from keeping such a significant secret. Ultimately, the decision lies in the hands of the patient, but openness and honesty are the foundations of strong relationships.