Which statement is an argument against full disclosure?

• A. Truth-telling can be injurious, evoking panic, hopelessness, fear, and depression
• B. Most patients really do prefer to be told the truth about their diagnosis
• C. Data from surveys suggest that most patients really do prefer to be told the truth about their prognosis
• D. Conveying essential information is unnecessary

Answer: (A)

When we weigh full disclosure, a major question is balancing truth with the patient’s emotional well-being. The statement about truth-telling being injurious directly captures a legitimate concern: telling the whole truth can provoke panic, hopelessness, fear, and depression, which are harms that can overwhelm a patient and complicate their ability to cope or make decisions. This is why it’s considered an argument against universal, unfiltered disclosure—because it emphasizes protecting the patient from potential psychological harm and highlights the need to consider timing, delivery, and support when sharing difficult information.

The other ideas describe patients’ expressed preferences or assert that information is unnecessary; those lean toward supporting disclosure or minimizing information, rather than arguing against it on the grounds of potential harm.