You see, in my english class, we were talking about quacks and fraud. The teacher then asked everyone this:

Do you think it's right for a quack to give hope to a dying person? Why or why not?

The teacher's opinion, is yes, absolutely. My opinion though, is no, no way. I'll explain my answer in a later post in this topic, but right now I want you guys to answer the question. Surely we can have a nice debate like in the other philosophical questions topics. I think this is a very personal moral question...and whichever side you choose it'll sound cold. I understand that this can get very heated, but I'd like it if we keep the inflamatory tools away. Ok?

What's wrong with giving someone hope? However, if I was terminal, I would want to know so I wrap things up.

Is a quack a doctor?

First and foremost I think that a doctor has to tell the person the truth no matter what the prognosis. However I do think that no matter how bad it is, even if it is a 99% chance of death, then they should try and make the person believe that they have a chance, since there is the posibiltiy that someones mental state can have an effect on their chances of survival.

Oh, from an online dictionary: An untrained person who pretends to be a physician and dispenses medical advice and treatment.

So...someone who acts like they know what they're talking about? I wouldn't really trust their opinion...but hope is not bad. I mean, they should tell them how long they've got, but if there's any chance, even a practically impossible chance that someone could live, you should tell them...

Depends on the situation. For instance, there are many professions where quacks (ie Homeopaths, Faith Healers, and the like) tell a person that they have the cure to what ails them and tells them to go off of their real medicine. Which often is because they can't afford it or they are worried about the side effects, but the long term effect is often that they lead shortened lives or die. The power of these placebo medicines is that people believe that they work; therefor, sometimes they do. It's the placebo affect. Not to say that Homeopaths don't believe that they are curing people, they have just fooled themselves into thinking that a placebo is a real medicine. In the case of Faith Healing, often the person gets such an adrenaline boost from hearing your cured that they for a short time have their symptoms go away. Problem is they come back. I have seen cases where the Faith Healers ask the patients to throw their medications up on the stage and say you don't need it anymore.

In these cases, heck yea its wrong. It gives them hope, but makes them think that they don't need their medicines.

I disagree. Why should you give false hope to a person who is dying? I'm not even saying 99% chance. I'm saying like someone with terminal cancer on his/her last months of life, who gets turned off by the doctors who tell him/her that he/she they've done all they could but theycouldn't do anything anymore, that the person only had X months to live and that's it.

Then the person goes to see a quack, and this quack tells him/her that he/she will get cured if he/she follows the quack's treatment. In reality, everything is false, and worse even, quacks are profiting from a dying person.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this.

Oh, and the meaning of a quack is a person who deceives other people by pretending to be a doctor (for the purpose of the question, only doctor) with little to no medicine knowledge, who decieve the people in order to obtain money.

You'd be shocked at how well mood and hope can improve someone. People who are given only a certain amount of time to live can find themselves quite happy and content, moving forward and spending their lives as they wish, and often those that do well outlast those who don't.

If a Quack is doing it to sell false hope intentionally, targetting desperation is pretty low. But if the Quack is providing hope and a better mental mindset, perhaps not physical but making someone hopeful, happy and comfortable towards their death, people do pay for that, and pay for it knowingly.

Whether the quack is providing that or just milking money counting on desperation rather than making some money by raising hope changes my approval.

Also, it is the dying person's money, their choice.

The question is flawed, a quack shouldn't be practicing medicine in the first place.

But as for telling the person they're dieing, they should simply be presented with the facts in a well thought out way. Think of the show House and the differences in House, Cameron, and Wilson telling someone they're dieing. House is an ass, Cameron is too sympathetic, and Wilson is just right.

Obviously it is immoral, because wouldn't you want to have a SECOND OPINION??? BEFORE YOU DIE???