A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests

Question

A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests of the patient. On the other hand, the patient has a right to be fully informed about any negative findings concerning the patient’s health. When this duty conflicts with this right, the right should prevail since it is a basic right. Anything else carries the risk of treating the patient as a mere object, not as a person.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) All persons have a right to accept or reject any medical procedures proposed by a physician.

(B) Some actions are right independently of the consequences that might ensue.

(C) Because only persons have rights, objects do not have rights.

(D) A person’s basic rights should never be violated.

(E) In medicine, the patient’s basic right to information is stronger than most other rights.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Okay, we have two conflicting rules here. First, the physician has a duty to see to the patient’s best medical interests. Second, the patient has a right to be fully informed about negative findings. Apparently, sometimes, these two conflict. Like, for example, maybe a physician thinks it would be better for the health of a patient  not  to tell the patient that there is an alien life form growing inside his belly, because that would drive the patient completely insane to the point of suicide. But the patient has a right to be fully informed. So the two rules are in conflict. Got it!

The argument continues by concluding that when the two rules conflict (as with the freakish alien growing inside the patient’s belly) the right to be informed should prevail. Why this conclusion? Well, because the right to be informed is a “basic right,” whatever the hell that means, and anything else would carry the risk of “treating the patient as an object.”

We’re asked to make the conclusion “follow logically,” which means “ prove  it.” It’s a Sufficient Assumption question. We can almost always predict the correct answer here, because all we need to do is take the evidence and connect it tightly to the desired conclusion. Here, there are a couple ways to do it. First, we could simply say, “Basic rights should always win in any conflict with a competing rule.” Or, we could say, “The risk of treating a patient as an object must be avoided at all costs.” If either of those is true, then the physician  must  disclose the alien growing in the belly.

A) No, it’s not about whether or not you have a right to reject a  procedure . We need to force the physician to disclose the alien. That’s all we care about.

B) Huh? I suppose this might be necessary to the argument, but it’s not  sufficient . We need  sufficient information  to force the physician to disclose the alien. This isn’t it.

C) Like B, this one just doesn't build the bridge we are looking for.

D) Yep. We predicted “Basic rights should win every conflict.” That’s pretty damn close to this answer. Since we know the right to know is a “basic right,” the physician would be  forced  to disclose the hideous creature growing in his patient’s belly, even if the patient would then immediately throw himself off the hospital roof. This is going to be our answer.

E) Nah. The conflict wasn’t between two rights; it was between a right and a duty. And anyway, “most other rights” wouldn’t be strong enough to  prove  that the basic right should beat another right.

Our answer is D, because it was perfect.

archana21 · Answer

D.
The conclusion is that rights should prevail over duty. That happens only when rights are more necessary/assumed.

Posted from my mobile device

REALMAREZ · Answer

Look for the conclusion:

A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests of the patient. On the other hand, the patient has a right to be fully informed about any negative findings concerning the patient’s health. When this duty conflicts with this right,  the right should prevail since it is a basic right . Anything else carries the risk of treating the patient as a mere object, not as a person.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) All persons have a right to accept or reject any medical procedures proposed by a physician.  -- Irrilevant

(B) Some actions are right independently of the consequences that might ensue. -- Irrilevant

(C) Because only persons have rights, objects do not have rights.

(D) A person’s basic rights should never be violated.

(E) In medicine, the patient’s basic right to information is stronger than most other rights. -- Irrilevant

I think that once you have eliminated the irrilevant & easy-to-spot answer choices you can apply the negation technique to C & D.

(D)A person’s basic rights should  be  violated.  -- Yehhh the conclusion now is destroyed!!

unraveled · Answer

A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests of the patient. On the other hand, the patient has a right to be fully informed about any negative findings concerning the patient’s health. When this duty conflicts with this right, the right should prevail since it is a basic right. Anything else carries the risk of treating the patient as a mere object, not as a person.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) All persons have a  right to accept or reject any medical procedures  proposed by a physician. - WRONG. Acceptance and rejection is not discussed. It is about information of negatives.

(B)  Some actions  are right  independently of the consequences  that might ensue. - WRONG. Again diverts.

(C)  Because  only persons have rights, objects do not have rights. - WRONG. Problem is with 'because' as causation confusing is created that leads to non-core issue of the argument.

(D) A person’s basic rights  should never be violated . - CORRECT. Does not that evident enough though.

(E) In medicine, the patient’s basic right to information is stronger  than most other rights . - WRONG. For comparing it is wrong as it diverts from core of the argument.

Answer D.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE

The author claims that when a physician's duty to act in the best interests of the patient conflicts with the patient's right to be informed about any negative findings concerning her health, the patient's right should prevail since it is a basic right. Since it is unclear why basic rights take precedence over physician's duties, you need to look for an answer choice that establishes that fact. The last sentence of the stimulus is irrelevant and meant to slow you down, not help you understand the question.

Answer choice (A): Having the right to accept or reject a procedure is immaterial to the task of establishing the precedence of basic rights over duties.

Answer choice (B): The correctness of some actions does not mean they are "basic rights." This answer choice conflates two meanings of the word "right"; one is an adjective, the other a noun. Furthermore, for the conclusion to be proven as true, all actions that enact basic rights must be "right," i.e. must take precedence over duties, not just some actions. At best, this would be an assumption for the argument, not a way to establish it as true.

Answer choice (C): The rights of objects are immaterial to this conclusion.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If basic rights are never meant to be violated and they sometimes conflict with someone's duties, the rights should prevail. When added to the premises of the argument, this answer choice proves the conclusion and is therefore correct.

Answer choice (E): This is perhaps the strongest decoy answer in this question. However, the fact that the basic right to information is stronger than most other rights does not establish that it is stronger than most other duties. And even if it were, "most" is not good enough; for the conclusion to be proven as true, the patient's basic right to information must be stronger than all duties that might arise in the context of a the doctor-patient relationship.

jerryharlands · Answer

The conclusion logically follows if it is assumed that the patient's basic right to information is stronger than most other rights, as indicated in option (E). This assumption ensures that the physician's duty to inform the patient prevails over other considerations.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests of the patient. On the other hand, the patient has a right to be fully informed about any negative findings concerning the patient’s health. When this duty conflicts with this right, the right should prevail since it is a basic right. Anything else carries the risk of treating the patient as a mere object, not as a person.

The conclusion is that patient rights should prevail.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed? - We need the minimum condition.

(A) All persons have a right to accept or reject any medical procedures proposed by a physician. - out of scope.

(B) Some actions are right independently of the consequences that might ensue. - Philosophically true, but the scope is between Doctors' duties and patients' rights; patient rights should prevail. This option, at best, is out of scope.

(C) Because only persons have rights, objects do not have rights. - Out of scope. It doesn't even deal with the conclusion.

(D) A person’s basic rights should never be violated. - ok. Its an opinion but a minimum condition.

(E) In medicine, the patient’s basic right to information is stronger than most other rights. - This comparison is out of scope.

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.

A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests

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 Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests

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