PrepTest 128, Section 3, Question 19
Scott: The Hippocratic oath demands, specifically, that doctors(122 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- ARestrictions on the(23 more words not shown)
- BOnce a patient(20 more words not shown)
- CSince a psychiatrist(29 more words not shown)
- DSince any psychiatrist's(32 more words not shown)
- EIf a patient(30 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Scott reads “never divulge” as a strict rule. The psychiatrist released the tapes, so Scott judges that he violated the oath. The poet's death, the recipient's role as official biographer, and the poet's own permission supposedly make no difference.
Permission is where I'd pause. If confidentiality protects the patient, doesn't the patient's willingness to share the information matter? The poet said the psychiatrist could use the tapes as he saw fit. A strict reading of “never” points one way, while thinking about the apparent purpose of confidentiality makes the context seem relevant.
Bonara takes that second view. Bonara accepts confidentiality obligations but rejects Scott's conclusion that these circumstances were irrelevant. Bonara's statement about personally requiring written permission is a description of Bonara's own practice, not evidence that the poet supplied written permission here.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to support Scott. So set aside which position feels more appealing. I'd look for a principle making the confidentiality obligation strict enough that the patient's permission cannot remove it.
Working the answers
- A
This makes death an exception to the obligation. Since the tapes were released after the poet died, it would work against Scott's claim that the psychiatrist still violated the oath.
- B
This makes permission an exception. The poet authorized the psychiatrist to use the tapes as he saw fit, so B helps defend his discretion to release them. We need support for Scott's criticism, not for allowing the release.
- C
Interpreting permission in light of the patient's outside behavior doesn't establish that the permission is ineffective. We do have some evidence of the poet's public behavior: her published works were confessional. That could be consistent with a willingness to disclose personal matters. Either way, C doesn't give Scott a reason to disregard the circumstances and treat the obligation as binding despite consent.
- DCorrect
This supplies a reason confidentiality cannot be waived by one patient: disclosure could undermine other patients' trust in their psychiatrists. The obligation therefore protects more than this particular patient's preference. If no patient can release the psychiatrist from it, the poet's permission doesn't remove the obligation. That supports Scott's evaluation of the release.
- E
This creates another route out of the confidentiality obligation, based on the patient's intention to make the information public. Whether all its conditions are satisfied here or not, its direction is to allow release in some circumstances. It doesn't support Scott's refusal to let the circumstances excuse the psychiatrist.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.