<p>In contexts where children face imminent death despite ongoing medical care, a significant ethical question arises: should they be informed of their approaching death? Although international guidelines now advocate for honest and developmentally appropriate communication, parents and clinicians are sometimes still inclined to withhold this information. Such non-disclosure may be viewed as an exercise of therapeutic privilege, potentially justified by the Best Interest Standard, the prevailing framework for proxy decision-making in pediatrics. Yet it remains contested whether concealing end-of-life information truly aligns with a child’s best interests, as evidence suggests that withholding information may not always serve the child’s overall well-being. This paper critically examines the legitimacy of non-disclosure in pediatric end-of-life care. It explores whether non-disclosure can be inherently beneficial and whether children possess an intrinsic interest in knowing about their imminent death. Moving beyond the dichotomy of disclosure versus non-disclosure, the paper proposes a nuanced, interest-based evaluative framework, where truth is treated not as an absolute value but as a means to promote the child’s overall well-being.</p>