They say ignorance is bliss. I don’t think so. I can’t think of one thing in the world that I would be happier not knowing then knowing. But then again, I have an inquiring mind, and I would like to know as much stuff as possible before I die, about everything. So, the question is, is ignorance ever the better option?
What?
Why twice?
Ignorance is often the better option. As a family doctor, I could test your urine for MGUS, monogammopathy of undetermined significance. Maybe 10-15% of people with this label go on to get multiple myeloma twenty years down the road, but I don’t know who and I can’t do anything to stop it. SO why would you want to ruin your life by knowing you have a small chance of getting a disease without treatment? Ignorance is often bliss.
Sorry… I couldn’t remember whether I had posted that here already or not. 2x can’t hurt too much though, can it? Please forgive me.
What does feces taste like?
Or is that question one which shows a circumstance of ignorance beinbg bliss?
What if every nutjob knew how to convert nitrate fertilizer into high explosive?
Could knowing the exact time you were going to die ever be a good thing? I think most of us would rather not know that.
elfkin477, check out www.deathclock.com.
Don’t confuse being truly ignorant with enlightened ignorance.
Enlightened ignorance is often useful but pure ignorance isn’t.
Example: You are an office worker and the boss says the company’s bulldozer operator is sick today and somebody needs to run the thing.
If you have enlightened ignorance you will say you don’t know how even when you do(or don’t remember how), saving yourself a hot, dirty day of work.
If you are truly ignorance, you say yes and end up having to go outside and get sweaty and stuff.
This distinction is often useful in politics, personal relationships and of course, legal proceedings.
I don’t want to argue about this because your position has a lot to recommend it. However, if the patient doesn’t know that this condition is present and a treatment ever is developed he or she probably won’t get the benefit of it, being ignorant.
It seems to me that a full explanation also has some merit. I mean, the fact that 85-90% of the time this condition is harmless and furthermore it is a long time into the future. This way the person is alerted and can keep in touch with you about possible future treatment developments. If you stay current with the literature, that is.
I think that localized ignorance, for instance myself not knowing a particular thing, is useful in some cases, like knowledge about other people’s sex lives, personal hygine, or health issues I can’t do anything about anyway. But I don’t think that there is any information we shouldn’t try to ascertain at all, or should never be available to people. If someone wants to know if he’ll catch a completely incurable disease in the far future, I think he should be allowed to.