The terms "informed" and "patient' s consent" were perhaps first coupl

Don't be gloomy , I'm here to help!

Question 1.

For the first question, I've highlighted the relevant part -

We need two things for C to be correct
1. patient's consent
2. doctor to give out all relevant information

(2) is stated in the paragraph, highlighted above.
And for (1) we need to make a very small assumption as this is not explicitly stated in the passage. There are various clues, for example in the first line of the same para the author states that it not not always applicable to non-invasive procedures. This points to the fact that consent is pretty much always required for invasive procedures. I think the gap is small enough to infer this - especially when in the first paragraph even though myelography (non invasive) was performed and the patient still won the case.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Question 3.

You might be tempted with choice B.
(B) doctors were allowed to continue performing the potentially dangerous myelography procedure without the patient’s consent.
Problem with B -
We do not know myelography is potentially dangerous. This is even after the fact that the patient Salgo got paralysed. He might have been mighty unlucky. A 0.0001% chance of a really bad thing happening in a medical procedure, does not make the procedure potentially dangerous.

D perfectly fits. The author states that although the doctor had committed no mistake - meaning he wasn't required by the law to divulge the risk of the procedure.

PS: If one struggles with such a question, it shows that your CR and RC skills both need attention.

Hi AnirudhaS
Thank you for your explanations
but regarding Q3, If doctors are not required by law to give information to their patients, why would there be a legal case in the first place? you can't charge someone for not committing something they are not required to do. Also it says "He won although the doctor had committed no mistake because the doctor failed in his duty of disclosure." implying it was doctors' duty to inform the patient, however he failed to do so

Laws are never set in stone, and often change according to the times. In this particular case, Salgo definitely won but that does not necessarily mean the doctors were charged. When such a decision is taken, the law is rewritten from there on and is followed until the next change.

AnirudhaS please explain Q4

The part in bold is the key to the answer. The author says that some preconditions are specifically formulated.

Now lets look at A
(A) Abortion legislation in Norway requires that the patient sign a special consent form that is different from the general consent form required for other medical procedures.

I think we can reasonably infer that in Norway, abortion legalisation needs a special consent (some precondition specifically formulated).

Paraphrasing:
Para 1: The terms "informed" and "patient's consent” – Case doctor loss and patient won Myelography
Para 2: Three independent preconditions to valid “consent”, weaker the patient, stricter the procedural consideration
Para 3: certain fundamental medical procedures call for strict requirements to be met on personal and procedural competence, followed by example: Norway’s abortion, illustrated by the 1973 case of Kaimowitz vs Michigan Department of Mental Health.
Para 4: Doctor needs to follow all the procedure to get approval with patients consent

1. According to the passage, when a treatment is invasive,
Explanation: as mentioned in the passage, last para –
“When the treatment offered is invasive,
the doctor will have the responsibility for providing the patient with all necessary information
about the risks and the alternative treatments and their probable consequences.”

(A) difficult psychiatric patients cannot consent to ordinary surgical procedures,
and even to "accepted neurosurgical procedures”
Wrong: This stem, gives information, about specific patients suffering mental pain,
and their ability to accept consent for any treatment procedure, thus this makes option A, Irrelevant

(B) difficult psychiatric patients must have a family member give written consent for any surgical procedures.
Wrong: Again, specific category of patient is highlighted, and
gives importance to approval of consent by family member

(C) the patient’s express consent is necessary and it is the doctor’s responsibility to obtain it from the patient
after he or she has received all the necessary information
Correct: Easily detectable, as mentioned in the passage, mentioned above, patient has right to ask details about procedure of treatment, which doctor has to provide necessary information, with pro-cons and must be ready for rejection too.

(D) the patient’s express consent is necessary and it is the staff’s responsibility to obtain it from the patient
after he or she has received all the necessary information
Wrong: Easy elimination, highlights, it’s a staff responsibility to obtain, but as per information in passage staff can provide information, but taking consent is doctor’s responsibility , “In most cases, staff should be able to decide on the necessary procedures without having the patient's express consent, after having provided information to the patient.”

(E) the patient’s express consent is if
the patient has received all the necessary information about the risks and
the alternative treatments and their probable consequences.
Wrong: the reason, I have rejected this option is the word “If”, which diverts
the discussion in two different directions, such as
First - Who will provide the information? And Who is responsible to accept the patients consent?
Second - “if” actually refers to which another condition.

2. Which of the following, most accurately states the purpose of the passage?
(A) To compare two different approaches to the question of consent
Wrong: No two different approach tone

(B) To summarize two court cases regarding the question of informed consent
Wrong: Tricky Trap! Court cases were example to highlight importance of “notion of informed consent”

(C) To argue for a particular interpretation of the term “informed consent”
Wrong: logically there is no specific incidence for which argument is done,
among all other option, this seems to be easy elimination, as it makes one to think, which particular interpretation?

(D) To cite examples of how the notion of informed consent has been abused by medical staff working with psychiatric patients
Wrong: Passage tone is the show importance of “notion of informed consent” not about medical staff abusing the protocol

(E) To discuss the notion of informed consent, its history and some variations on how the term is applied
Correct
Para 1: Introduction to “notion of informed consent”
Para 2: Historic details
Para 3: Some variation and legal complication can occur
Para 4: Conclusion

3. It can be inferred from the passage that prior to 1957
Explanation: as mentioned in the passage, para 1, line 1 and last line
“The terms "informed" and "patient's consent" were perhaps first coupled in the 1957 case of Salgo versus Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees.”
“He won although the doctor had committed no mistake because the doctor failed in his duty of disclosure.
The court found that if the patient had been properly informed, he would have refused myelography”
Intended meaning: it was necessary to inform patient, but not by law.

(A) doctors were allowed to continue performing the potentially dangerous myelography procedure
Wrong: This stem, is about doctor’s use of myelography during their treatment with patient.
This stem, does not concern with “notion of informed consent”

(B) doctors were allowed to continue performing the potentially dangerous myelography procedure
without the patient’s consent.
Wrong: logically this is too ambiguous for one to come to this conclusion, it might be or might not, this stem highlights more about doctor’s authority decision making

(C) doctors were not allowed to neglect informing their staff of the dangers of a medical procedure and the alternatives that exist.
Wrong: Easy elimination, this stem, shows no relationship between, doctor and patients but deals more on doctor and their staff

(D) doctors were not required by law to inform their patients of the dangers of a medical procedure and the alternatives that exist.
Correct: as explained above, sentence mentioned from the passage, sentence 1, gives introduction with specific date and referred case study, and sentence 2, though doctor lost the legal case but was not the victim.

(E) doctors were required by law to inform their patients of the dangers of a medical procedure and the alternatives that exist.
Wrong: this stem, is just opposite, what was done prior to 1957


4. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage about Norway’s abortion legislation?
Explanation: as mentioned in the passage,
“Equally, certain radical medical procedures call for stringent requirements to be met on personal and procedural competence.
Such preconditions may be specifically formulated, as in Norway's abortion, sterilization, and transplantation legislation”

(A) Abortion legislation in Norway requires
that the patient signs a special consent form
that is different from the general consent form required for other medical procedures.
Correct: explained and give importance to procedural competence

(B) Abortion legislation in Norway does not require that
the patient sign a consent form because
the patient is assumed to have personal and procedural competence.
Wrong: This gives more information about a capability of patients to understand personal and procedural competence, it’s a documentation, specifically formulated

(C) Abortion legislation in Norway does require the patient to sign a consent form
only when the attending physician believes
the patient lacks personal and procedural competence.
Wrong: This gives more information about a capability of patients to understand personal and procedural competence, it’s a documentation, specifically formulated

(D) Abortion legislation in Norway require the patient to sign a consent form
only even when the attending physician believes
the patient lacks personal and procedural competence.
Wrong: This gives more information about a capability of patients to understand personal and procedural competence, it’s a documentation, specifically formulated

(E) Legislation in Norway requires the patient to sign a consent form only
when a procedure is not intrusive so the law does not deal with abortion.
Wrong: This gives more information about a capability of specific patients dealing with abortion to understand personal and procedural competence, it’s a documentation, specifically formulated

Hi Sajjad,

Can I get the OE for Q4?

This is a very short explanation, Sajjad. Isn't there any other one which has a proper explanation which talks about all the choices.

Hello Prob2303

Because you specifically asked for OE so i posted the one which comes with the question. Another better explanation is available here in the post in the link below

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-terms-in ... l#p2946862

Let me know if it makes sense to you.

Thank you!