Four cases are presented for discussion. In the first case, the patient believed the doctor for a while when his suspicion of cancer was forcibly denied. But when radiotherapy followed the operation, he became convinced that he had been deceived and confronted the doctor aggressively to force him into a confession. In the second case, the patient, a resident of the U.S. for many years, was told on completion of tests the true diagnosis even before his American wife learned of it. He became very depressed, while his wife kept urging him to fight the cancer. In the third case, the doctor thought better of the earlier decision by another doctor not to tell the truth. The doctor called the patient's relatives to discuss the advisability of telling the truth and when he secured their confidence, he visited the patient with them and told him the true diagnosis. The patient recovered from the initial shock and lived peacefully for several months enjoying the new union he felt with his wife. In the fourth case, it is as if there were a kind of silent conspiracy between the doctor and the patient's relatives who kept her in the dark about her condition. When her illness went downhill, she became completely withdrawn, though she accepted religious ministering to the end. It is cruel to deceive the patient with false hopes. But to tell the patient the truth needs tact. The doctor in the third case gives a very good model of it. First, he assesses the patient's personality. Second, he convinces the patient's relatives of the advisability of truth-telling. Third, he assures the patient that he is in charge no matter what happens to him. Perhaps it was easier to tell the patient the diagnosis of cancer or its poor prognosis in bygone days than nowadays, when the wonders of modern medicine are too much publicized.