If the child is seen as an independent agent, capable of understanding their illness and what it means to die, they can and morally should be told as much as any adult in the same situation. However, if one views the child as incapable of understanding death and disease, they should only be told what is necessary for them to be prepared for any medical procedures. In her nine-month study of terminally ill children, Anthropologist Myra Bluebond-Langner discovered that they knew and understood a great deal more about their disease and medications than what they were told: .
The children had a great deal of technical information about the drugs used in treatment - the purposes for which the drugs were given, their side effects, when and how the drugs should be given, their efficacy at various points in the illness, and how long the drugs" effects lasted. (Bluebond-Langner, 1978, p.157).
The children also discuss their illnesses and the medical procedures amongst themselves: .
They sought out peers for information on the purposes of various treatments and procedures. They formulated hypotheses about the relationship between various symptoms and the drugs, procedures, or treatments employed, and checked them out with their peers they know they"ll get a straight answer [from them]. .
(p. 181).
The children even went out of their way to glean new information, by eavesdropping or lying, "One child went so far as to plant a tape recorder in the conference room [where the doctors held their meetings]" (p. 138). Since they are already so well informed and seek out the knowledge about their illness so readily, it would only make sense to tell them everything they desire to know. According to Bluebond-Langner (1978):.
The decision should be made by the same rule of thumb that is applied in decided what to tell children about sex: Tell them only what they want to know, what they are asking about, and on their own terms.
