Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
‘The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor conceal it. It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth—this indifference to how things really are—that is the essence of bullshit.’1
—Harry Frankfurt
In his paper, Nudging, informed consent, and bullshit, William Simkulet accuses doctors of being bullshitters when they knowingly influence patient decision making through means other than argument and reasoning, that is, through ‘nudges.’ In these instances, he contends that they care little about patient understanding or communicating the truth about the options and, instead, care only about presenting alternatives in ways that cause patients to do what the physicians think they should do.2
However, doctors can intend to enhance patient understanding at the same time that they try to influence patients’ choices. Consider a physician who wants her patient to get a vaccine. …
Footnotes
Contributors All authors meet authorship criteria for this paper.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Public health ethics
- Commentary
- Response
- Commentary
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- At odds with the truth
- Nudging, informed consent and bullshit
- Risk communication in cataract surgery
- The Cohen problem of informed consent
- Deception in medicine: acupuncturist cases
- Ethics of vaccine refusal
- Truthful nudging
- Aid-in-dying laws and the physician's duty to inform
- Measuring patients' preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk
- Is medically assisted death a special obligation?