Most doctors will tell you the truth, with compassion. So I don't think it's an either/or as you portray it.
Nor do I think the liberal position, ideologically, is "pretty good." It's based on a tissue of lies. Take, for ex., the basis of all liberalism/marxism/socialism, the "labor theory of value," which says, essentially, that all labor is valuable and you should therefore be rewarded JUST for doing work. When you do not create value for someone else---yet you still (through government edict) get rewarded---you are engaging in pure selfishness. This is not as it is always portrayed by the left---as a grand, benevolent, selfless "sharing."
To the average citizen, yes, it is. It extols compassion, "vision," and love of man for his fellow man. It empowers the weak and downtrodden at the expense of the greedy and powerful. It makes up for all the "flaws" in God's creation.
It's based on a tissue of lies.
Which is why the THEORY -- the image Liberals sell -- is so much more than the REALITY -- the end product people get. It's also why millions die at the hands of so-called compassionate socialists. As citizens realize with horror the absolute paucity of the promises they've been given, their rebellion must be contained at a cost in blood. Socialism is the ultimate Procrustean "solution."
Take ... the "labor theory of value ..."
Marx would disagree with your assessment. He would regard labor itself as ultimate fulfillment, especially if its benefits were directed toward the collective. Contrast that with the labor theory of capital, in which your labors go primarily to benefit some capitalist overlord.
For what it's worth, my characterization was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek oversimplification -- an aphorism, not an analysis.