Question: Richard is a sixty-seven year-old man with terminal cancer. He has just had a lover scan and been told to visit his doctor, an oncologist (that is, a cancer specialist whose work focuses on tumors), and get the results. When Richard arrives, the doctor says that there has been no change in his condition, which is, nevertheless, not good. Richard asks the doctor what can be done, and he replies that there is no remedy for this kind of cancer. Becoming somewhat agitated, Richard asks the doctor what we would advise him to do, but the doctor merely repeats his opinion that there is nothing to be done. By this time Richard is both frustrated and upset, and he asks the doctor why he won't care for him and doesn't care about him. In response the doctor gives Richard a prescription, but he makes it clear that the drug is being prescribed only as a psychological crutch--that it will not improve Richard's health. When he finally leaves the doctor's office, Richard feels totally depressed, abandoned, and dehumanized. Do you feel the doctor handled Richard's case well? Is so, why; of not, why not? How would you have handled the situation or advised the doctor to handle it? Discuss both the truth telling aspect of what the doctor said and his methods of giving out information and relating to his patient.