There are plenty of things like this, where the value of information of warnings is negative. Knowing you have cancer is highly useful if it can be usefully treated. If it can be wastefully treated in ways that will make you miserable and cost lots of money without doing much for your lifespan, and your doctors and family are going to push you to do that and you’ll feel guilty if you don’t, then you really don’t want to know.
… An ideal reasoner would sure like to know they had an incurable illness, and would not regret pursuing additional information. I agree that humans don’t work like that. On the other hand, we do know that we’re mortal, we can look at actuarial life tables, and in this respect we do importantly differ from other animals. But why should it be good to know you’re mortal, but bad to know you have an incurable illness? See the Litany of Gendlin and all that.
It not the “knowing you have cancer” part, it’s the “your doctors and family are going to push you to do that and you’ll feel guilty if you don’t” part. You might benefit from the information, but you might prefer your doctors and family didn’t know.
… An ideal reasoner would sure like to know they had an incurable illness, and would not regret pursuing additional information. I agree that humans don’t work like that. On the other hand, we do know that we’re mortal, we can look at actuarial life tables, and in this respect we do importantly differ from other animals. But why should it be good to know you’re mortal, but bad to know you have an incurable illness? See the Litany of Gendlin and all that.
It not the “knowing you have cancer” part, it’s the “your doctors and family are going to push you to do that and you’ll feel guilty if you don’t” part. You might benefit from the information, but you might prefer your doctors and family didn’t know.
Aren’t doctors usually required by law not to tell other people about your health, including your family? Medical confidentiality and all that.