Scott: Support The Hippocratic oath demands, specifically, that doctors "never divulge" information about patients. █████ ███ ████████████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ █ ██████ ███████ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ █████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ ███████████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████ █████████ █████ ████ ███████ ██ █ ████████████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ████████████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ███ ████
███████ █ █████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ██ ███████ ███████ ███████████ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ █████ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████ █████████████ █ ████████ ████ ███ █████████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████ █ ██ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ████████████ ████████ ███ ███████████ █████
Scott concludes that the psychiatrist violated his oath by releasing tapes of a poet’s therapy sessions to her biographer after her death. Why? Because the oath says doctors can never divulge patient information, and it doesn’t matter that the poet wrote openly about personal things and told the psychiatrist he could do what he wanted with the tapes.
Scott concludes that the psychiatrist broke his oath by releasing the tapes, even though the poet had died, shared personal things in writing, and gave him permission. He assumes that none of these reasons cancel out the doctor’s oath to keep information private.
To help justify his argument, we need a principle that satisfies this assumption by confirming that a doctor’s oath to keep a patient’s information private is not overridden by one or all of these factors.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ████████████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ████████
Restrictions on the ███████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ██ █████████████ ███ ███ ███████ █████ ███ █████████ ██████ █████ █████ █████ █ ██████ ███ ██ ██████ ██████ █████
This leads to the wrong conclusion. Scott concludes that the psychiatrist did break his oath, despite the fact that the poet had died. If the oath isn’t binding after a patient’s death, this supports Bonara’s argument that he did not break his oath.
Once a patient ███ ███████ █ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████████ ████████████ ████ ███████████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ███████████
This leads to the wrong conclusion. Scott argues that the psychiatrist broke his oath because he should not have released poet’s information, even though the poet gave him permission to do so. (B) supports Bonara’s argument that the psychiatrist did not break his oath.
Since a psychiatrist █████ █████████ █ █████████ ████████ ██████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ████████
Even if the poet was influenced into telling the psychiatrist that he could release her information, it’s possible that her directive should be followed when interpreted in the light of her other actions. So (C) doesn’t support the conclusion that the psychiatrist broke his oath.
Since any psychiatrist's █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████████ █████ █ ███████ █████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ██████████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ █ ████████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███████████ █████████████
If a patient cannot release a psychiatrist from the obligation to keep patient information confidential, this helps justify the conclusion that the psychiatrist broke his oath, even though the poet said he could divulge her information.
If a patient ███ █████████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████████ █████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ██ █ ██████████████ ███████████ ███ ████████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ████ ███████████ █████████████
This leads to the wrong conclusion. Scott argues that the psychiatrist broke his oath because he was not released from the obligation to keep the poet’s information confidential. (E) supports Bonara’s argument that the psychiatrist did not break his oath.