A patient has the right to receive information regarding his or her state of health from the attending physician including regarding the diagnosis, the plan for medical treatment, examination and rehabilitation of the disease, the prognosis and consequences, the functional restrictions caused by the disease and the opportunities for prophylaxis, as well as the right to receive the information after examinations and surgical or other type of invasive intervention performed within the framework of medical treatment, regarding the results of the medical treatment, regarding the previously unforeseen outcomes and the reasons thereof. (..) It is admitted in the law (Section 4.7.) that, although patients have rights to this information, there may be conditions under which this right can be left unfulfilled, i.e., if a physician has "information or facts" that indicate that the disclosure of clinical knowledge can significantly threaten "the life or health of the patient or other persons". Unfortunately, there are no guidelines about how the law should be applied to particular types of cases. Therefore, every physician is free to interpret the requirements according to his or her subjective understanding of which "information or facts" should be considered as life or health threatening. The requirement of protection of the interests of unspecified "other persons" is even more confusing. What could the nature of a physician's relationship to some third party be, such that it would override his or her primary duties toward the patient? And why would the patient's right to know the truth be ignored in favour of some other person's right not to know it?

(Ivars Neiders, Vija Sile, Vents Silis "Truth-telling and the Asymmetry of the Attitude to Truth-telling to Dying Patients in Latvia")