Ethical dilemmas in communicating medical information to the public.

This paper examines arguments for and against objective communication between health-care experts (HCEs) and the public concerning matters of health and disease. It argues that HCEs should have neither a purely objective approach nor a paternalistic approach to communications with the public. The informed consent model is the best way to promote public health, prevent disease, respect individual autonomy, and safeguard scientific honesty and openness. In following this model, HCEs should provide lay people with the information and advice they need to make sound decisions. They should not manipulate, distort, exaggerate, or conceal relevant information, nor should they use coercive means to induce the 'correct' decisions. Paternalistic communication only makes sense under the extraordinary challenges posed by bona fide public-health emergencies. Of course, informed people may still make unwise choices, but this is a cost that one must accept in a free, open, and democratic society.