1. He could tell the son that he didn’t know. This would leave the question open in the already regretful son’s mind, maybe forever. Mayne the doubts would make him started drinking again. That answer certainly wouldn’t promote “closure.”
2. He could tell the son that he didn’t know, but that some of what he heard might mean that the father died suffering. That would be akin to #1, but worse.
3. He could refuse to answer, raising suspicions in the son that the withheld answer was something the doctor hesitated to relay out of kindness.
4. He could say, “Yes, I’m afraid your father died in horrible agony, calling out your name.” That would be cruel whether it was true or not.
5. Somewhat lesser, watered down versions of #5.
6. He could say what he did say.
Of course, whatever the son’s reaction would be to any of those options is moral luck. He might respond to #5 by thinking, “Good! It served the old bastard right!” However, the one response that is unquestionably kind, that scrupulously avoids all likely or potential harm and that can be decisively defended on utilitarian grounds is “Your father died in his sleep, peacefully.” None of the answers above will bring the father back to life. 1-5 carry the potential for haunting the son and exacerbating his grieving process to various degrees.
The one downside for the doctor is that what he said triggered his own ethics navel-gazing sending him to “The Ethicist,” and robbed him of the comforting myth that he is a better human being for telling the truth no matter what the consequences (to others.) I can see one arguable “benefit” of telling the son that his presence might have saved his father some suffering in his last breaths: the doctor might feel that the resulting guilt could finally prompt the alcohol-abusing son to reform, give up the booze, start a new life, become better, more responsible human being. Great: why not throw the son to the ground, slap him in the face and scream, “Yes! Your father suffered because of you, you coward! You couldn’t bear to see him die, so you got drunk and left him alone! Will you finally stop your irresponsible ways, hive up the bottle, and become a positive force in society? Will you? WILL YOU???”
“It’s understandable that you wanted to spare a grieving person further pain. Still, it was a mistake to give an answer you didn’t believe. A lie can sometimes be justified when it prevents serious harm and there’s no better alternative. Here, though, you could simply have explained that you weren’t there but that his father was being cared for, with the aim of keeping him comfortable. It’s very likely that the son was feeling guilt about not being there. You could truthfully have reassured him that his absence didn’t cause his father’s death or take away from the care he had previously shown.”
Wrong. And the last sentence isn’t true!
One of the comments on that piece was a person saying holding her cat while it was euthanized was one of the most horrifying things she ever experienced so now she is never in the room when her pets breathe their last.
She’s a horrible person and shouldn’t be allowed to ever have another pet.
As far as the question/answer, I’m leaning towards being in favor of lying to the son because it appears the son didn’t make up a lie for the doctor about why he didn’t answer his phone.
I wouldn’t apply the word “horrible” to a person who’s not actively making the world a worse place for personal gain, but I would describe that person as a weak-willed coward. I’m not currently brave enough to take responsibility for the health and happiness of a pet, but if I did have a pet that had to be euthanized I’d consider it the bare minimum obligation to be a presence of comfort and familiarity in its last moments of awareness.
It does raise the question of how empathetic and attentive she really is to her pets, and for that matter to the people in her life.
Oh, she is right that it is horrifying. I have had to do it twice. It is awful because you are at the place you have always taken the cat when sick to make the cat better. If the cat has any understanding of the situation at all, it thinks you are going to make it better with the shot. The dying cat is purring in your arms while the shot is given and the cat just stops. It stops purring, stops breathing, and the life goes out of the eyes in an instant before the shot is even done.
If you can’t handle that, however, you are not really ready for adult responsibility. If you can’t handle that, you really shouldn’t vote.
I’ve had to go through this four times. You do it out of care and love for the animal. It’s the least one can do.
Yes, you do it for the animal. I think she’s horrible because she’s more concerned about her discomfort than about her pets’ comfort. I would not want to risk my pets feeling abandoned by me in their last moments just so that I didn’t have to witness it.
This lie did likely prevent serious harm. Given the state the son is in, and the fact that he is already struggling with guilt over his alcoholism and it causing him to miss his father’s last moments, this lie likely prevented a spiral. It’s a good lie, like telling someone with dementia that their deceased spouse/aunt/sibling is ‘out shopping’ or ‘on a trip’ over and over. I don’t find ripping people’s hearts out in the name of truth virtuous in the least. It comes across as narcissistic fake virtue. The doctor needs another think about the situation, with a therapist or trusted colleague instead of a newspaper columnist.