Logical Reasoning

PT128 · S3 · Q19 Scott: The Hippocratic oath demands

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Scott: The Hippocratic oath demands, specifically, that doctors "never divulge" information about patients.

Conclusion (Hence)

The psychiatrist who released tapes of a poet's therapy sessions after the poet died violated his Hippocratic oath, i.e. The psychiatrist "divulged information about his patient", when he released tapes of the poet's sessions)

Evidence

(True, the tapes were only released after the poet had died and only released to the poet's official biographer) But it was still divulging patient information. It doesn't matter that the poet wrote in a confessional manner (the poet still has a right to privacy). It makes no difference that the poet told the psychiatrist he could do whatever he wants with the tapes (the Hippocratic oath still constrains the psychiatrist from divulging patient information).

Evaluate

Scott is evaluating the psychiatrist's actions to be a violation of the Hippocratic oath's rule against divulging patient information. After all the psychiatrist released tapes of the poet's sessions. He disseminated private patient information.

Were we to try defending the psychiatrist, we'd say - the poet was dead - the psychiatrist only gave the tapes to the poet's official biographer, clearly someone the poet trusted with all kinds of personal information - the poet actually gave the psychiatrist her blessing that he could do anything with the tapes that he saw fit

Goal

Look for any answer that helps us be stringent and say,

19.

Which one of the following principles, if established, helps most to justify Scott's evaluation of the psychiatrist's actions?

Restrictions on the release of
Opposite
This helps us argue that the psychiatrist did not break the "never divulge patient info" rule, because that rule doesn't count once the person is dead.
2% picked this
Once a patient has granted
Opposite
This helps us argue that the psychiatrist did not break the "never divulge patient info" rule, because that rule doesn't count if the patient gave you permission to release their info at your discretion. The poet did give the psychiatrist permission to do with her info what he saw fit.
5% picked this
Since a psychiatrist could influence
Unclear Impact
This answer is saying that since a therapist has some weird mind control influence over their patients, you should take statements the patient makes during therapy with a skeptical grain of salt. The patient might be in a pressured/brainwashed state and might say stuff they wouldn't otherwise say or believe. So this would help Scott say, "it doesn't matter that the poet told the psychiatrist that he could do what he wants with the tapes; after all, a directive like that might have been influenced by the psychiatrist. The poet might have been 'brainwashed' during therapy. We should think about whether the poet's other actions in life are a good match for this." It very weakly strengthens Scott's case to at least raise the issue that we should verify the poet really meant what she said about "do with the tapes as you see fit", and wasn't just in a brainwashed therapy state. But we don't know if the patient's actions outside therapy corroborate or undermine the sincerity of saying "do with the tapes as you see fit". If anything, the fact that we know this poet publishes lots of confessional tell-all works means that we would probably consider the poet's actions outside of therapy as pretty consistent with saying "do what you want with my tapes".
5% picked this
Correct
Since any psychiatrist's divulging to
Why this is right
This allows Scott to say, "It doesn't matter that the poet gave the psychiatrist permission to divulge the taped sessions. It's still not allowed, for good reason -- it's important that all psychiatrists refrain from divulging information so that potential patients aren't scared off by awareness that stuff said during therapy sometimes gets divulged." It takes one of our best ways of defending the psychiatrist's actions, "The poet gave him permission!", and says, "Sorry, don't care. It's a rule from the oath, and no patient gets to exempt you from that rule."
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
82% picked this
If a patient has expressed
No Impact
This does not look tempting, because this is a rule that would say the psychiatrist is released from the "never divulge" rule. But we're trying to support Scott's conclusion that the psychiatrist was still bound by this rule and broke it. If the trigger of this rule actually applied to the poet's situation, then this answer would terribly weaken. Since the trigger doesn't apply, this answer just does nothing.
5% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free