Disclosure of Diagnosis and Prognosis to Cancer Patients in Traditional Societies: A Qualitative Assessment from Lebanon

Background: The issue of when, how, and whether to disclose full information about cancer diagnosis and prognosis to patients is still debated in some parts of the world, including Lebanon. Despite formal academic emphasis on a larger autonomy for Lebanese patients in deciding the course of their disease, there has been no apparent impact on either clinical practices nor public expectations. The topic of full disclosure is rarely if ever discussed in open fora, or in mass media channels in Lebanon. Subjects and Method: Seven key stakeholders were identified and interviewed regarding obstacles to spelling out clear guidelines within our national context. The interviews were transcribed and subsequently analyzed for recurrent patterns and concepts. Results: Senior oncologists interviewed generally favored gradual disclosure and most perceived a changing trend among both patients and physicians towards more disclosure. They also agreed on a need for the formal training of residents and fellows to better communicate bad news to patients. All the interviewed physicians attested to the benefits of candid disclosure in terms of patient psychology and overall wellbeing. They also mentioned that psychological services, which may facilitate the disclosure process, are greatly under-utilized in oncology. Lawyers highlighted the vagueness of the current Lebanese legislation regarding the obligation of truthful disclosure in comparison to laws in developed countries and the implications on patient autonomy. Conclusion: The study identified the need for improvements at various levels, including interventions to modify the expectations of the Lebanese public regarding cancer disclosure and to clarify existing legislative texts