LSAT 128 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q19

LR Question 19 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Scott: The Hippocratic oath demands, specifically, that …

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify

ARGUMENTS: Scott argues the psychiatrist violated the Hippocratic oath because the oath requires doctors to never divulge patient information, even if it appears the poet didn’t mind.

Bonara agrees that doctors should not divulge patient information without permission, but disagrees that circumstances are irrelevant in this case. She doesn’t think the psychiatrist violated the oath.

ANALYSIS: The question asks us to find a principle that justifies Scott’s position on the psychiatrist. His position seems pretty absolute. But note that he doesn’t say doctors can NEVER release patient information under ANY circumstances. Think about court rooms or police investigations. Scott doesn’t address these situations so we don’t know his position, but it seems to be an overreach to assert that Scott would also deny exceptions that are legally recognized by the oath itself.

Instead, what he does argue is that these specific circumstances do not release the psychiatrist from the obligation of confidentiality. His stance is that the psychiatrist is still bound by their oath, even if the poet is dead, granted permission, or has a history of confessional writing.

His argument essentially generalizes into a principle on how patients cannot release doctors from their Hippocratic obligation of confidentiality. This obligation stands regardless of the patient’s consent or death.

___________

1. This contradicts Scott’s view. If confidentiality automatically ended at death, then the psychiatrist didn’t violate the oath. But Scott says they did.
2. This also contradicts his view. In the final sentence, he says it doesn’t matter that the poet told the psychiatrist he could do what he wanted with the tapes. The psychiatrist still violated the oath.
3. Irrelevant. Scott isn’t arguing that the poet’s permission was coerced, influenced or misinterpreted. His argument is that even if the patient gave permission, the doctor is still bound by confidentiality.
4. CORRECT. This establishes what Scott is arguing. The duty of confidentiality holds regardless of whether a patient approves of their information being disclosed.
5. Similar to A and B. Scott rejects the idea that the poet’s history of confessional writing makes it acceptable to disclose the therapy tapes.