Scott: The Hippocratic oath demands

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite3% picked this

   Restrictions on the release of patient information by psychiatrists are not binding after the patient's death, since after death a person

   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.

   3%
2. B

   Opposite5% picked this

   Once a patient has granted a psychiatrist permission to release confidential information, that information can be released to

   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%
3. C

   Unclear Impact6% picked this

   Since a psychiatrist could influence a patient's opinions during therapy, any directives to the psychiatrist by the patient must be interpreted in the light

   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".

   6%
4. D

   Correct81% picked this

   Since any psychiatrist's divulging to the public information about a patient could undermine the trust of other patients in their psychiatrists, no patient can

   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.

   81%
5. E

   No Impact5% picked this

   If a patient has expressed an intention to make public information about himself or herself that is in a psychiatrist's possession, the psychiatrist is

   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%