Couple things here. I highlighted a few words, because I feel it's important to go into some nit picky. When you say should, I am assuming, then, that you would have that they be REQUIRED to do so...in this case, be up front and honest about a patient's chances. I'm not sure, but I think they already are legally required to be upfront and honest on those things. I also highlighted truth, because that's a very dangerous word. You say truth as if it's an end all be all, but it's not. Doctors are not masters of the universe, they can't even all agree with each other. If a patient, or a patient's next of kin, wants to cling to life, to a ray of hope that YOU, or SOMEONE else, doesn't believe is even there, some doctor's perception of the "truth" of the situation SHOULD have absolutely NO bearing on that choice. One doctor telling a patient they are going to die SHOULD not be the final word. That's why we have the ability to seek second opinions. And third opinions. And fourth. And so on. That's the beauty of our healthcare, in this country. Some doc tells me a I got three months to live, I am FREE to seek out another one, maybe the best in the field, to try for a better diagnosis.
All curative treatment should only be with held by the CHOICE of the patient. Period. Doctor's orders be damned.
He is using the exact hyperbole that is often bandied about in abortion topics.