Ethicist: This hospital's ethics code states that hospital staff must not deceive patients about their medical treatment. But we know that Dr. Faris administered medication A to a patient and informed him that it would help him sleep. Medication A has no known sleep-inducing properties. So, Dr. Faris is clearly in violation of the ethics code, despite the fact that the patient's sleep did improve after taking medication A.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the ethicist's argument?The ethicist says Dr. Faris deceived the patient because medication A has no known sleep-inducing properties.
The weakness is that a medication can help someone sleep
indirectly, even if it is not itself a sleep-inducing drug.
(A) Dr. Faris was aware that medication A had no known sleep-inducing properties.
This strengthens the argument. If Dr. Faris knew the medication was not known to induce sleep, then the statement looks more deceptive.
(B) A committee at the hospital is currently considering revisions to the hospital's ethics code.
This is irrelevant. The issue is whether Dr. Faris violated the current ethics code.
(C) Medication A is a pain reliever that can indirectly lead to sleep due to a reduction in the patient's discomfort.
This is correct. If medication A reduces pain and thereby helps the patient sleep, then Dr. Faris’s statement that it would help him sleep may have been accurate, not deceptive.
(D) Several other members of the hospital staff prescribed medication A to patients who had trouble sleeping.
This does not weaken much. Other staff may have done the same thing, but that does not show the statement was not deceptive.
(E) Dr. Faris knew that the patient was not taking any other medications that have sleep-inducing properties.
This does not weaken the argument. It makes medication A look like the relevant cause of improved sleep, but it does not show that Dr. Faris’s statement was not deceptive.
Answer: (C)