[jamesrom]

Then here's an idea: instead of hiding that information, you can explain it to the patient.

You have no authority to treat your patient like a child.

[Centigonal]

disclosing information is not a medically neutral act. Knowing you have a medical condition can create a great deal of anxiety and anguish and prompt lots of tests. If the result of all those tests and anxiety is "no action indicated," you've basically given your patient a condition that reduces their quality of life for no upside.

I once had a misdiagnosis of an incurable illness that I didn't actually have, and the stress of dealing with that caused me to develop another, very real medical condition that took a year to get under control.

[bawolff]

Hypothetically (totally made up numbers), if a positive result on the test means there is 1/10000 chance you have cancer, and negative result means a 1/20000 chance, with the test also having a 1/1000 chance of giving the patient an adverse reaction, i think the questions most patients would ask is why was the test run in the first place?

[bryanlarsen]

We're not talking about hiding information, we're talking about not looking for it in the first place. Information that is costly to acquire but not actionable once acquired.

[lurking_swe]

in some cases the knowledge itself is a curse. These commenters mostly have no clue what they’re talking about and it shows.

My spouse found out they had a benign brain tumor, an accidental discovery while doing a brain scan for some other reason. She now has to get annual scans done to make sure the size doesn’t change. Guess what? It hasn’t changed in 5 years.

You might say “better safe than sorry!” To that i say - bullshit. It’s caused her lots of unnecessary stress and anxiety. EVERY year she goes back to the testing center and stresses out about if it’s changed in the last year. She sleeps poorly sometimes because of the anxiety, etc. Knowing every microscopic issue within your body is not always a net benefit! Quality of life matters too, not just longevity.

I think it really depends on the type of cancer. Actionable information is the most useful information.

[dekhn]

This is a "why don't you just" answer. The reason the establishment does this is that we know the outcome of telling people is worse than not telling them. This is an expensive lesson learned over over a century of medical treatment.

[delichon]

Outside of an emergency I would prefer "first, fully inform" to "first, do no harm", acknowledging the potentially mortal cost.