Q13 - Police published a "wanted" poster

[b91302310]

I was stuggling between (C) and (E) and I unfortunately chose the wrong one. Since the requirements are to report 1) gunshot and 2) infectious disease. However, (C) mentions only requirement 1)- "except in the case of gunshot wound", but fails to mention requirement 2). Could that be a reason to challenge this answer choice ?

Also, is (E) incorrect because the stimulus does not mention "other medical personnel working to preserve or restore the health of a patient " as the requirement ?

Could anyone explain it?
Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Not exactly. Answer choice (E) is wrong because it doesn't remain compatible with the requirements cited above. Answer choice (E) would preclude reporting gunshot wounds to police and infectious diseases to health authorities.

Remember that the answer choice is supposed to show that responding to the request would violate medical ethics, while remaining compatible with the requirement described in the stimulus.

Also, "compatible"= "consistent" = "could be true"

Since answer choice (C) does not address the requirement regarding health authorities, it is consistent with the requirement.

It's similar to a "must be false" question. Answer choices that are irrelevant or do not address the issue are things that could be true, and thus, not the correct answer.

Does that clear this one up?

[b91302310]

Very clear! Thanks!

[yama_sekander]

why would we eliminate D. the main problem i had with this answer was interpreting the part that states "except as required by the medical treatment of the physician"

could someone explain that? thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Happy to help!

The problem with answer choice (D) is that it doesn't answer the question. The question is tricky here, but it asks for the answer choice to remain compatible with the requirements to report gunshot wounds to police and certain infectious diseases to health authorities. Answer choice (D) would violate these requirements, since it would not permit physicians to report such information.

Make sense?

[Amir.m.shoar]

Happy to help!

The problem with answer choice (D) is that it doesn't answer the question. The question is tricky here, but it asks for the answer choice to remain compatible with the requirements to report gunshot wounds to police and certain infectious diseases to health authorities. Answer choice (D) would violate these requirements, since it would not permit physicians to report such information.

Make sense?

Still having a little problem with this one. Doesn't "except as required by the medical treatment of the patient" imply that except for when it is a gunshot or infectious disease, then it is unethical to disclose patient information without their consent? I don't quite understand why D is wrong.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Doesn't "except as required by the medical treatment of the patient" imply that except for when it is a gunshot or infectious disease, then it is unethical to disclose patient information without their consent?

The issue is that reporting to the police is probably never required by the medical treatment of a patient. I can see why this one is tricky, but "required by the medical treatment" doesn't refer to the requirements placed on medical providers stated in the stimulus, but rather a requirement for a medically successful treatment of the patient.

So answer choice (D) would violate the requirements in the stimulus since neither of those requirements are required by the medical treatment of the patient.

[deedubbew]

How do we know that we can assume requirements to report gunshot wounds are ethical?

[WaltGrace1983]

Trickkkkkky. This was a tough one for me because I forgot that idea of "remaining compatible with the requirements cited" and what those "requirements were." Let's break this down:

Requirements: Physicians must report (1) gunshot wounds and (2) certain infectious diseases to health authorities.
+
These requirements are ethical
→
Physician's responding to the poster's request would violate medical ethics

What is the argument really saying? It is saying, "well since the physicians have to report these infectious disease anyway, they might as well just report the fugitive to the police. This clearly wouldn't violate med ethics!" What's the problem with this? The problem is that reporting the disease out of necessity to a health authority is not the same as reporting the identity of a fugitive to the police! We need to find a principle that says something like this while also conforming to the requirements

(A) So much wrong with this. This is saying that since the physician is a citizen he would violate ethics by concealing information. The problem with this is two fold: (1) the idea of bringing the nature of a "citizen" into this is a little apprehensive; (2) we are not talking about concealing information. We are talking about voluntarily giving information.

(B) This is saying that the patient's "medical condition" cannot be shared with "anyone" except XYZ people that are not the health authorities. This is the problem. It violates the requirements.

Yet I would also wonder...would this be correct if it substituted "personnel within the physician's office" with "health authorities." Hmm...

(D) I picked this one originally. The problem with this is the idea of not disclosing "except as required by the medical treatment of the patient." This would violate the requirements because the requirements state that physicians must absolutely report diseases and gunshots to health authorities regardless of consent. This requirement is definitely not "required" by the medical treatment of that patient.

(E) "Except to other medical personnel..." This is wrong because it also violates the requirements of having to report to report to health authorities.

Now let's look at (C), the correct answer.

I initially wrote off this one as wrong because it was talking about "reducing the patient's willingness to come in." My thought process was that this was out of scope; I was assuming that the fugitive already came in. However, this assumption is unwarranted. This argument gives us no indication of time. When will the physician reply? When will/did the fugitive come in? etc. The answer to all of this is that "we don't know."

Now let's analyze a little bit more of what is going on here. This answer choice says that "reducing a patient's willingness to come in for treatment by a policy of disclosing identities to law enforcement agencies...is not ethical." The key phrase here is "disclosing identities." We know that it is ethical to disclose certain health information of people to certain parties yet this answer choice says that it is not ethical to disclose the actual identities to the police. This is perfect!

Now let's analyze one more thing: "except in the case of gunshot wounds." This is my contention with the answer choice. This is essentially saying that it is ethical to disclose identities. Where in the stimulus does it ever say that? It says that it is ethical to "report gunshot wounds" but not "identities." Can anyone speak to this?

[WaltGrace1983]

How do we know that we can assume requirements to report gunshot wounds are ethical?

"These exceptions to confidentiality ["requirements to report gunshot wounds to police"] are clearly ethical.

I know, I undermined that sentence too

[Mab6q]

Trickkkkkky. This was a tough one for me because I forgot that idea of "remaining compatible with the requirements cited" and what those "requirements were." Let's break this down:

Requirements: Physicians must report (1) gunshot wounds and (2) certain infectious diseases to health authorities.
+
These requirements are ethical
→
Physician's responding to the poster's request would violate medical ethics

What is the argument really saying? It is saying, "well since the physicians have to report these infectious disease anyway, they might as well just report the fugitive to the police. This clearly wouldn't violate med ethics!" What's the problem with this? The problem is that reporting the disease out of necessity to a health authority is not the same as reporting the identity of a fugitive to the police! We need to find a principle that says something like this while also conforming to the requirements

(A) So much wrong with this. This is saying that since the physician is a citizen he would violate ethics by concealing information. The problem with this is two fold: (1) the idea of bringing the nature of a "citizen" into this is a little apprehensive; (2) we are not talking about concealing information. We are talking about voluntarily giving information.

(B) This is saying that the patient's "medical condition" cannot be shared with "anyone" except XYZ people that are not the health authorities. This is the problem. It violates the requirements.

Yet I would also wonder...would this be correct if it substituted "personnel within the physician's office" with "health authorities." Hmm...

(D) I picked this one originally. The problem with this is the idea of not disclosing "except as required by the medical treatment of the patient." This would violate the requirements because the requirements state that physicians must absolutely report diseases and gunshots to health authorities regardless of consent. This requirement is definitely not "required" by the medical treatment of that patient.

(E) "Except to other medical personnel..." This is wrong because it also violates the requirements of having to report to report to health authorities.

Now let's look at (C), the correct answer.

I initially wrote off this one as wrong because it was talking about "reducing the patient's willingness to come in." My thought process was that this was out of scope; I was assuming that the fugitive already came in. However, this assumption is unwarranted. This argument gives us no indication of time. When will the physician reply? When will/did the fugitive come in? etc. The answer to all of this is that "we don't know."

Now let's analyze a little bit more of what is going on here. This answer choice says that "reducing a patient's willingness to come in for treatment by a policy of disclosing identities to law enforcement agencies...is not ethical." The key phrase here is "disclosing identities." We know that it is ethical to disclose certain health information of people to certain parties yet this answer choice says that it is not ethical to disclose the actual identities to the police. This is perfect!

Now let's analyze one more thing: "except in the case of gunshot wounds." This is my contention with the answer choice. This is essentially saying that it is ethical to disclose identities. Where in the stimulus does it ever say that? It says that it is ethical to "report gunshot wounds" but not "identities." Can anyone speak to this?

Hey Walt,

I think it is reasonable to assume that if they are reporting gunshot would, they would have to report identities. How else would one go about reporting gun shot wounds?

In regards to B, I think it would still be wrong because it wouldn't remain compatible with the argument. It leaves out the possibility of sharing information on gun shot wound to police.


Hope that helps.

[pacificbonito]

This will be my last post regarding prep test 12. I am apparently VERY bad at the logical reasoning section. But what's wrong with B.)???

I understand the 'constraints' of conforming to the gunshot would and infectious disease rules (and I did overlook them, sort of), but the question stem does not mention anything about identity! Is this by some common-sense standard common knowledge? Maybe the cops just do a survey, maybe they don't get identity but just ask question, or provide some sort of immunity clause... I am not a EMT or a policeman, so I do not know.

THE REAL QUESTION is this: I excluded answer C.) because of the specific language -- "identities". WT#! In the future how am I going to know when to 'go with it' and when to be a hair splitting demon of logic? Is it not reasonable to assume that 'reporting gunshots' can involve something other then the victims identity? What does ID matter to police? Isn't it more important to stop crimes like gunshots? Perhaps identities is not needed, maybe even detriments based on similar logic proposed for neglecting needed medical care?

Is the logical chain that proves C.) have anything to do with the language :

"The poster asked for information about the whereabouts of the fugitive" and am I as the test taker supposed to transfer this request to somehow define "report gunshots and infectious diseases?" Is such a transposition (wrong word?) by some common-sense standard even prudent? And furthermore, wouldn't a person get sued if they disclosed the identity of a person with an infectious disease? (yes I know C doesn't talk about disease)

Lastly, what is "public health" supposed to mean? I know I am being argumentative, I want to be a lawyer after all, maybe I am just no good, BUT, perhaps "public health" is best PROMOTED by full disclosure? Maybe freedom and "public health" are incompatible, and if "public health" was the prime concern, maybe we should live in some Orwellian totalitarian dictatorship.

Probably detrimental to the forum, I am sorry for that, but I don't understand. I still think B is better and that a contract exists between patient and doctor. No specific about 'identity' were made available. Also, patient health and public health have no reason to coincide. We have guns, bombs, bullets to kill others so as to keep them from killing us -- promoting "public health", if your "public" is the citizens of your country.

SO... Thanks for all the posts, I will stop posting now.

[tommywallach]

Hey Pacific,

Just so you know, instructors only respond to blue/green posts (people who've bought/registered our books or taken classes). So other students may respond to you, but instructors usually won't, unless we feel there have been tons of questions on a thread and it merits a response anyway. Thanks!

-t

[jm.kahn]

I had the same question about C as the above poster.

C only excepts gunshot wounds reporting as not violating ethics. But the stim excepts reporting of gunshot wounds and certain infectious diseases as not violating ethics. So, C actually conflicts and is not compatible with the requirement in the stim about reporting someone with infectious disease.
Can someone explain this issue with choice C?

Not exactly. Answer choice (E) is wrong because it doesn't remain compatible with the requirements cited above. Answer choice (E) would preclude reporting gunshot wounds to police and infectious diseases to health authorities.

Remember that the answer choice is supposed to show that responding to the request would violate medical ethics, while remaining compatible with the requirement described in the stimulus.

Also, "compatible"= "consistent" = "could be true"

Since answer choice (C) does not address the requirement regarding health authorities, it is consistent with the requirement.

It's similar to a "must be false" question. Answer choices that are irrelevant or do not address the issue are things that could be true, and thus, not the correct answer.

Does that clear this one up?

[kyliecunderwood]

I had the same question about C as the above poster.

C only excepts gunshot wounds reporting as not violating ethics. But the stim excepts reporting of gunshot wounds and certain infectious diseases as not violating ethics. So, C actually conflicts and is not compatible with the requirement in the stim about reporting someone with infectious disease.
Can someone explain this issue with choice C?

C doesn't actually conflict, though it does look at first like it would. It's the last line that's the most important, since it talks about it not being ethical to report to "law enforcement agencies" specifically. As we know from the stimulus, infectious diseases are reported not to law enforcement but to HEALTH authorities. Since C makes no mention of withholding information from such authorities, and acknowledges the one criteria we've been given which would make it acceptable to report to the law, it is consistent with the requirements.

Does that make sense?