Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be

Question

Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be involved in capital punishment of convicted criminals. Some physicians vigorously support participation, often arguing that organs should first be removed for transplantation. One frequent objection to capital punishment is that sometimes techniques don‘t work the first time, resulting in lingering, painful deaths. If physicians would guarantee that a patient would not die in such a way, they would gain the trust of some patients.

For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of ― designated killer  technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean. But is this workable? Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?

Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves. Nor do they think other physicians should kill. Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life. One poll of American physicians showed 60 percent favouring euthanasia but less than half would perform it themselves. To such physicians, taking life radically conflicts with the symbolic image of physicians. Such conflict, they say, destroys trust in physicians.

Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea ―an unsavoury prospect.‖ She suggested that mercy killing may one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care. She asks how any physician can excuse himself from this most basic notion? Dr. Angell concluded, ―Perhaps, also, those who favour legalizing euthanasia but would not perform it should rethink their position.

Dr. Angell implies that it is hypocritical to favour mercy killing but would be unwilling to perform it. Is this true? There are at least two schools of thought. Some thinkers believe that if one favours, say, meat-eating, one should be willing to kill and prepare animals for eating oneself. Others conclude differently, seeing no reason why each person who favours a position must be willing to implement it.

Must you be willing to kill a serial murderer to favour capital punishment? Critics say one must. Being face-to-face with one‘s victims creates basic moral qualms and such moral restraints are important to respect. In Stanley Milgram‘s studies on obedience, naive subjects under an experimenter‘s control were dramatically less willing to inflict injury as the victims became closer to subjects under study. In contrast, as the consequences of actions became more remote, such as by pressing a switch which released a bomb on an unseen, unknown populace, it became easier to inflict injury.   1 
 1. Consider the main points that the author makes throughout the passage. The primary purpose of this passage is to:

A. speculate on the symbolism of the physician as healer.
B. portray those doctors who argue against administering euthanasia as hypocritical.
C. cast and explain the different arguments surrounding euthanasia.
D. introduce the concept of ―designated killers‖ to a receptive audience.
E. convince doctors to take up euthanasia

2 
 2. According to the passage, which of the following is most likely to be true of those physicians who favour the creation of so-called ―designated killers?

A. They believe it is good patient care to provide a continuum of services.
B. They seek to keep the physician remote from acts of harm.
C. They understand that it raises a conflict with their opinions on capital punishment.
D. They fear abuse of the privilege that comes from this unique role.
E. They are emotionally weak

3 
 3. According not necessarily to the author, but to those in favour of euthanasia specifically, what is a potentially negative aspect of the use of ―designated killers?

A. They would disrupt the continuum of patient care provided by a physician.
B. They might release physicians from an association with death.
C. Their use might prevent lingering, painful deaths.
D. The prescription of euthanasia may become more prevalent as physicians are removed from the act itself.
E. They might not be as qualified as the actual doctors

4 
 4. The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using ― designated killers  is that:

A. the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option.
B. very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties.
C. physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia.
D. many physicians are reluctant to administer euthanasia because they are not in favour of capital punishment.
E. they are eventually complying with the patients‘ wishes

bM22 · Accepted Answer

Consider the lines: "For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of ―designated killer‖ technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean............Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?"
and
"Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea ―an unsavoury prospect.‖ She suggested that mercy killing may  one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care.  "

As per the above the lines we can say that E definitely seems a correct answer, but what we are asked is: what is a  potentially negative aspect of the use of ―designated killers . So we need to understand that is "technicians being designated killers", the major negative aspect in any kind of killing? Most importantly even if technicians might not be as qualified as actual doctors what would stop them from exploiting their positions?

A potentially negative aspect of the use of ―designated killers, would be a major distrust between the patients and the physicians, because when physicians suggest euthanasia or any sort of killings, they are reluctant to perform it themselves and since someday euthanasia would be an important part of good patient care, it is necessary for physicians to not be such hypocrites in this regard as it would disrupt the trust between patients and physicians.

Thus A is a better answer.

Hope This Helps.
Thanks.

medha312 · Answer

please explain Q3. why is Option E incorrect? I marked E thinking the following line suggests technicians are not as qualified as physicians - Wouldn't physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?

also, I think option A is mentioned by Marcia Angell who is not in favor of euthanasia (as required by the question)

also, I think option A is mentioned by Marcia Angell who is not in favor of euthanasia (as required by the question)

mukherjeeabhish · Answer

Can anybody explain Q4 . I thought E is the best option.

bM22 · Answer

Hi  mukherjeeabhish ,

Answer to Question 4 can be inferred from the lines:  Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves . Nor do they think other physicians should kill.  Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life.

Above option though present in the passage is not an assumption  of those in favour of using ―designated killers . It could be considered an assumption when endorsing mercy killing, but the question is about assumption as to why physicians prefer designated killers to perform any kind of killings, rather than doing it themselves. Thus B is the better answer.

Hope This Helps.
Thanks.

mimishyu · Answer

para1:
the argument for “capital punishment of convicted criminals”, to which the support side thought it would be effective and the organ taken out be useful for transplantation, while the objectors hold that it won’t be as ideal as those supporters assume

para2:
introduce the designated killer, how it lend a hand to those physicians in performing the execution, however doubts remain that whether this profession could perfectly replace the role of physicians

para3:
illustrate the paradox among these physicians in that their inclination to mercy killing won’t always in sync with how their doing really was, it is, they often do not have enough willingness to execute the killing by themselves

para4:
the designated killer being discussed in para2, here take an outsider’s view to cast doubt on these killers which very often will harm the role of physician’s due responsibility and the medical system

para5:
two schools of thought being raised to further debate on the paradox attitude toward physicians in para3, here we could see that some of them is quite lean toward the idea to the creation of designated killer, while others don’t

para6:
its hypocrisy if one kill a murderer but not favor capital punishment, as para5 points out, however people tend to have this inclination very easily, for example raised by saying that if the execution is performed in an unseen way, the willingness to put practice on it will be higher as far as those evidence suggest, here use the indirect tone to present the author’s thinking in that how he view the role of designated killer

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

3. According not necessarily to the author, but to those in favour of euthanasia specifically, what is a potentially negative aspect of the use of ―designated killers?

Explanation

Where are the downsides of designated killers mentioned? Refer back to  Paragraphs 2  and  4 , where the author raises questions about designated killers and the editor of the NEJM raises objections.  (A)  is the objection raised by the editor: she argues that someday euthanasia will be part of good patient care and that physicians should be in on the action.

(A):  The correct answer

(B):  Opposite. This is one of the arguments that physicians who favor designated killers make.

(C):  Distortion: physicians, not designated killers, would prevent lingering, painful deaths.

(D):  Out of Scope. This argument isn‘t made in favor of physician-sponsored euthanasia.

(E):  Out of Scope.

Answer: A

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

4. The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using ― designated killers  is that:

Explanation

Go back to  Paras 2  and  4  to review the idea of the designated killer. Both those who support and oppose the idea suggest that it provides a degree of removal between the physicians and the act of death. An assumption of this, therefore, must be that physicians won‘t be the designated killers. If this is denied, the argument falls apart, a sure sign of a sound assumption.

(A):  Out of Scope. This would have no effect on the argument: denying it wouldn‘t necessarily weaken the contention that the use of designated killers is a bad 
idea.

(B):  The correct answer

(C):  Opposite. This is essentially the opposite of the correct assumption. The idea of designated killers assumes the absence of the physician.

(D):  Out of Scope. This also has no effect on the argument: If it‘s denied, the argument against designated killers remains just as strong.

(E):  This does not have to be an assumption.

Answer: B

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

1. Consider the main points that the author makes throughout the passage. The primary purpose of this passage is to:

Explanation

A rare global question: review topic, scope, and purpose and then simply find their closest match in the answer choices. While three choices are off topic and/or scope,

(C)  fits with the overall purpose of describing the conflicting arguments about euthanasia.

(A):  Out of Scope. The author doesn‘t deal with this subject in any depth, and certainly not as the overall purpose of the passage.

(B):  Faulty Use of Detail. While the author implies that some people might believe this about physicians, the author doesn‘t make it the focus of the passage.

(C):  The correct answer

(D):  Faulty Use of Detail. The author mentions this in  Para 3 , but it‘s not the purpose of the passage as a whole.

(E):  The passage tries to do no such convincing‘

Strategy Point:

Be sure to keep an eye out for the author’s position. When the author takes pains to be objective, as is the case in this passage, questions will almost always test to see whether you’ve picked up on this.

Answer: C

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards