This essay is centered on the structural dimensions-ethical influences, parameters in decision-making, and internal provocations-relating the issues of whether deception among clinicians can be regarded as plausibly sound. These matters are the motivation that plays a role in how the actuality of care is being communicated. Since the provider-patient relationship is mainly constructed by way of trust and confidence, the concept relating deceptions during the course of care takes a crucial part. In view of the fact that internal influences affect the predisposition towards the issues of deception, whether it is justifiable or necessary for the wellbeing of the patient, this concern will be viewed more clearly through the lens of biblical proportions and overall understanding of the value of human life. Truth telling in healthcare setting is a subject of intense debate. The physicians, nurses, and the rest of decision makers involve within the healthcare profession have an extensive familiarity, high level of proficiency and masterful capability in dealing with medical situations. However, ethically related conflicts many times arise regarding the deception or withholding medical information to avoid the complexities that may affect patient care strategies. These matters, unavoidably, are often times the likely reason that may limit the capacity of how the most appropriate course of medical procedures-imperative set of treatment actions that are vital to patients’ health-can be provided. The analysis of the limits of control ascends more coherently when the providers deal with scenarios where deceiving can be justifiable or not (Crow, Lou, & Steed, 2000). Stirrat (2013) argued that deception could be justified when the overall concern supports the goal of improving the welfare of patients (pg. 228). Take into account, for example, a patient that is experiencing a few signs and symptoms of the early stages of MS (Multiple Sclerosis). Since the medical observation is too early to make use as a comprehensive diagnosis, physician’s can only recognize the condition as a probability and inconclusive. In such type of medical case, physician’s opinions can only be viewed as subjective; therefore, further exams and differential diagnosis are necessary to arrive at a more definitive conclusion. The dilemma is, however, is that the patient’s medical insurance to which provides the means for funding a more advanced tests and progressions of medical examinations only covers for treatments that have conclusive diagnosis. Can it be a justifiable deception for the physicians to withhold the true nature of the medical status to the patient and insurance company in order to get the funding needed to take immediate medical actions? In that way, the early stages of MS can be dealt with more appropriately and in time so that the patient can be more prepared and comfortable as the sickness progress towards severe stages. Although the interest is noble, some argue that deception should have no part in healthcare since trust and credibility, as the experts in the issue, are the most vital factors of provider-patient relationship. Moreover, trust is the most difficult to recover the moment it is failed, and such occurrence may have an overwhelming effect on patient c