Question 19

Veracity

The ethical principle violated in this scenario is veracity, which refers to the obligation to tell the truth and provide complete information. By not disclosing the 70% mortality rate to the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the oncologist failed to uphold the standard of honesty required in ethical medical practice.

A) Justice

Justice relates to fairness and the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens in research. While the lack of disclosure may indirectly affect fairness in patient treatment, it is not directly related to the ethical breach in this scenario, which centers on the truthfulness of information provided.

B) Conflict of interest

Conflict of interest involves situations where personal or financial interests could compromise professional judgment. Although this issue could be relevant in other contexts, the failure to disclose the mortality rate does not represent a conflict of interest, but rather a failure to provide truthful information.

C) Beneficence

Beneficence focuses on the obligation to do good and prevent harm to patients. Although the non-disclosure may result in harm, the core violation here is not about the intent to do good but rather the lack of truthful communication regarding significant risks.

D) Veracity

Veracity is the ethical principle of truth-telling, which is essential for informed consent and transparency in medical research. By failing to disclose critical information about the 70% mortality rate, the oncologist violated this principle, undermining trust and informed decision-making.

Conclusion

The violation of the principle of veracity is clear in this case, as the oncologist's failure to disclose the mortality rate directly contradicts the ethical obligation to provide truthful and comprehensive information. Other options, while relevant to ethical considerations, do not address the specific issue of truthfulness in communication with the IRB. Therefore, veracity is the definitive ethical principle that was breached in this scenario.