Not the Whole Truth

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Not the Whole Truth file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Not the Whole Truth book. Happy reading Not the Whole Truth Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Not the Whole Truth at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Not the Whole Truth Pocket Guide.


  1. The Truth, the Whole Truth And Nothing But the Truth? Really?
  2. Navigation menu
  3. Muhammad Rustam Kayani

Many politicians use deceptive language. Pull a fast one? Mari-Lou A Sharen Eayrs Sharen Eayrs 1 1 gold badge 2 2 silver badges 6 6 bronze badges. You asked for a single word, but does it have to be? My first thought would be the fairly common phrase "lying by omission", which immediately makes it clear that you consider it as bad as any other lie. If you're open to phrases as answers, I can post it as such. Are you asking about intentional or unintentional deception? The last is commonly referred to as "cherry picking".

The restaurant misled its customers by hiding information about extra charges. Kevin 2, 17 17 silver badges 22 22 bronze badges. Chromane Chromane 1, 6 6 silver badges 16 16 bronze badges. This term is insufficiently specific. Acccumulation It was edited by someone else actually. We all human. As found on the list of types of lying on Wikipedia: Lying by omission Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Dispenser Dispenser 1, 7 7 silver badges 15 15 bronze badges.

The costs are stated. Just in a roundabout and non-obvious way. KonradRudolph that might justify a new question with an explicit example of a hidden cost deception. At face value from the OPs question, the cost was omitted from the price tag. Michael Rybkin 5, 3 3 gold badges 18 18 silver badges 45 45 bronze badges. Bilkokuya Bilkokuya 1 1 silver badge 11 11 bronze badges. Another example from The Free Dictionary : Politicians often bend the truth to make themselves look better and their opponents look worse.

Hope that helps you!

The Truth, the Whole Truth And Nothing But the Truth? Really?

Michael Rybkin Michael Rybkin 5, 3 3 gold badges 18 18 silver badges 45 45 bronze badges. Zebrafish It doesn't if you don't know how to use metaphors in your writing. As I already said this one is tricky. Also in at least two other of the examples the term may have to be used metaphorically, eg. Not trying to start an argument, just saying what I think are facts. It's quite clear from the OP's question that by word they mean anything that would work in the context they provided. You can see that there is even an expression among the solutions they originally came up with: pull a fast one.

And what's wrong with using metaphors? Such expressions are called a ' half-truth '. Wikipedia a statement that is intended to deceive by being only partly true Cambridge Russia spreading ' half-truths and half-lies' - Britain NewsHub - 6th April Nigel J Nigel J Obfuscate: To obscure, confuse. Lack of transparency in pricing is a real social scourge, in my opinion. Since there are convictions, this appears to be legally fraud. Konrad Rudolph Konrad Rudolph 1, 10 10 silver badges 21 21 bronze badges. Cherry picking Say you are a scientist. Laurel For example: "If you're going to mention A which supports your argument, you should be honest and mention B which damns your argument.

Navigation menu

Zebrafish Zebrafish Marc Marc 41 1 1 bronze badge. This paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology all my quotes in this answer are from that paper names 3 forms of deception and argues that they are distinct: Lying by omission which has already been answered to this question link. I will deal with the examples in order: In the first three examples the defense of the deceiving party will be that what is written is correct and corresponds to the other party having to pay a lot of money.

I think this is the correct answer, as the question implies the answer should be q verb: " My own answer, verisimilar is only an adjective that would describe the result of some forms of Paltering. I think it's also a bit of trick question, deceiving seems to be a perfectly good answer which is already mentioned in the question. The question asks for something more specific, but given the examples there may not be a more specific term which encapsulates all the examples.

Like asking for a specific term for fruit, giving apples, coconuts and oranges as examples. They are so different that there may not be a subset of fruit which includes all three. Omit: to leave out or leave unmentioned. Cherry-pick : to select the best or most desirable. LinuxBlanket LinuxBlanket 7 7 bronze badges. The word that comes to my mind is subterfuge Deception used to achieve an end a stratagem employed to conceal something Example: Using subterfuge, they lured him into signing the contract. Did you read the examples? How can a menu be verisimilar?

How can overcharging a client be verisimilar? How can Politicians' word promises be verisimilar? Where exactly is the falsity and deception implied? Is it ever justified to withhold information from competent patients? While the use of the therapeutic privilege has been recognized by several courts and is supported in the literature, this paper will explore why withholding information from a competent patient is not legally or ethically defensible.

Although most of the cases cited in this paper are from foreign jurisdictions, the process of judicial decision making makes them relevant to Ghana.

In resolving controversies, the courts usually look to their own jurisdictions to see if there is a binding precedent. In law, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court may need to adopt when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Precedents are intended to ensure uniformity and consistency in judicial decision making. A binding or mandatory precedent is a precedent which must be followed by all lower courts.

For instance, a decision by a High Court is binding on lower courts such as the circuit and district courts whereas a decision by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts. Although the Supreme Court has the power to reverse its own decision and thus create a new precedent in the case of a judicial review, this is rarely done.

In resolving controversies, if there is a binding precedent, then according to the doctrine of stare decisis, the lower court must adopt the reasoning in the higher court. For example, in the famous medical negligence case of Asantekramo v. Attorney-General [] 1 G. Sometimes, though, there may not be any binding precedent as in a case of first impression in a particular jurisdiction. In such cases, courts make decisions by looking to other jurisdictions that have dealt with similar cases using persuasive or advisory precedents.

A persuasive precedent may then become binding through the adoption of the persuasive precedent by a superior court. Again, in Asantekramo v. Attorney-General Justice Taylor referred to persuasive precedents in England and the United States of America regarding the nature of the question of duty which hospital authorities and their professional staff owe to patients in their care. Countries that share the English Common Law tradition look to each other's jurisdictions and even further afield in some cases for persuasive or advisory precedents or authority.

Medical practitioners in Ghana need to take cognizance of judicial decisions in other jurisdictions that impact medical practice since persuasive precedents can easily become binding precedents if adopted by a superior court such as the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in Ghana. The use of the therapeutic privilege has been rejected by some courts in favour of truth telling.

In Meyers Estate et al. Rogers , 78 D. The physician intentionally withheld information about the risks associated with contrast media. The Ontario court rejected a radiologist's claim of therapeutic privilege as a defence against failing to warn the patient of the risks of intravenous contrast medium injection. In the court's opinion, the therapeutic privilege exception to the doctor's duty of disclosure should not be part of Canadian law because of its potential to erode informed consent.

In another Ontario court case, Pittman Estate v. Bain , D. The court found that the use of the therapeutic privilege was unwarranted, regardless of the fact that the doctor was concerned about the patient's ongoing depression. The important argument here is that the patient's right to be informed takes precedence over the doctor's exercise of discretion. In the South African case of Castell v De Greef , 4 SA , a case of unsuccessful prophylactic double mastectomy and breast reconstruction to reduce the risk of breast cancer, the court held that a doctor is obliged to warn a patient consenting to treatment of material risks inherent in the proposed treatment.

The implication of this finding is that the patient's decision should hold even if the medical profession is of the view that the doctor should refrain from bringing the risks to the patient's attention because it is in the patient's interest to have the treatment. By adopting this standard, Castell indicates that there is no justification in invoking the therapeutic privilege even when the doctor thinks that the patient is likely to reject treatment. In Teik Huat Tai v. Although the Court accepted that the risk of recto-vaginal fistula following hysterectomy was not high nor life threatening, the leakage of faeces through the vagina may be a very unpleasant experience affecting a woman's self-esteem.

The court therefore rejected the defence of therapeutic privilege based on the fact that the patient was very nervous and had a history of depression. These arguments show that individual autonomy is fundamental to the common law and is the basis for disclosure to patients.

It is also the reason for the judicial overrule of the therapeutic privilege. Truth telling shows respect for patients; promotes patient wellbeing; furthers patient life choices; reduces the risks of harm to patients and reduces the doctor's liability. Moral arguments in favour of truth-telling can be justified on the basis of autonomy, obligations of fidelity and the need for trust in the doctor-patient relationship according to Beauchamp and Childress.

The ethical principle of autonomy which protects patient self determination goes hand in hand with truth telling. Lying to and deceiving patients breach the autonomy of individuals and interferes with the doctrine of informed consent. Although clinicians commonly argue that most patients do not wish to hear the truth, there is, in fact, very little evidence for this.

Withholding information from patients impairs their decision making capacity. Even when treatment options are limited, and prognosis is grave, knowing what to expect allows patients to prepare for what lies ahead instead of being overtaken by events. The doctor-patient relationship, at its very essence, relies on honest communication. Lying to or misleading patients undermines the veracity of the individual doctor and casts serious doubt on the trustworthiness of the medical profession as a whole.

Because trust cannot be built on untruthfulness, it is imperative that doctors truthfully disclose information to patients. This will not only foster and maintain trust in the doctor-patient relationship; it will also help patients to understand and deal with the difficult situations they may be facing thereby benefiting them and upholding the ethical principle of beneficence. The legal recognition of therapeutic privilege can be traced to the landmark case of Canterbury v.

In essence, where in the doctor's opinion, the patient is likely to be harmed by the disclosure; it is legal to withhold such information. Similarly, in Reibl v. Hughes 2 S. In Sidaway v. Lord Scarman referred to therapeutic privilege as justifying nondisclosure of treatment information in circumstances where the doctor reasonably believes disclosure of risk would be damaging to the patient or contrary to her best interests.

Muhammad Rustam Kayani

Rogers v. Whitaker CLR However, the court also held that a doctor's duty to disclose is subject to a therapeutic privilege which may justify withholding information that would harm the patient's health. Finally, in Chester v.

  • Britain Begins.
  • Faith and Philosophical Analysis: The Impact of Analytical Philosophy on the Philosophy of Religion (Heythrop Studies in Contemporary Philosophy, Religion and Theology).
  • News and the Whole Truth.
  • Unlocking Your Potential Through Self Hypnosis.
  • Deeper into the Heart of the Rockies: Selected columns from The Denver Post 1999-2012.
  • Would People Prefer Complete Honesty?.

These legal arguments in favour of the therapeutic privilege are not tenable because they utterly contradict the doctrine of informed consent. In the first experiment, children aged 6 and 7 were given a toy to explore on their own until they discovered all of its functions. One group of children received a toy that had four buttons, each of which activated a different feature — a windup mechanism, LED lights, a spinning globe, and music — while the other group was given a toy that looked nearly identical but had only one button, which controlled the windup mechanism.

After the demonstration, the children were asked to rate how helpful the teacher was, using a scale from 1 to The second experiment began the same way, with the children exploring the toy, then seeing either a full or incomplete demonstration of its functions. However, in this study, the teacher then brought out a second toy. Although this toy had four functions, the teacher demonstrated only one. Children who had previously seen a demonstration they knew to be incomplete explored the toy much more thoroughly than children who had seen a complete demonstration, suggesting that they did not trust the teacher to be fully informative.

They can also adjust how they learn from a teacher in the future, depending on whether the teacher has previously committed a sin of omission or not. In another recent study , Gweon and Schulz investigated the flip side of this issue: how children react to teachers who present too much information, rather than too little.

In a paper to be presented at the annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society in July, they found that children prefer teachers who do not spend time offering information that the children already know, or that they could have inferred from what they already know. Topics: Childhood , Early childhood development , Brain and cognitive sciences , Neuroscience , Research.

MIT News Office. Browse or.

Van Halen - The Whole Truth (2012)