Midterm exam study guide

The following papers will not feature in the mid term exam:
1) Gawande, Whose body is it anyway?
2) Siegler, Confidentiality in medicine: a decrepit concept
3) Katz, Informed consent: must it remain a fairy tale?
Everything else could be in there!
You should focus on:
1) Logic
a. Modus ponens If A then B. A. Therefore B.
b. Modus tollens If A then B. Not B. Therefore not A.
c. Affirming the consequent If A then B. B. Therefore A.
INVALID
d. Denying the antecedent If A then B. Not A. Therefore not
B.
e. Valid vs invalid an argument that is impossible to be false
given its premises to be true
f. Sound a valid argument with true premises
g. Inductive argument one that suggests its conclusion to
be true
i. weak inductive the truth of premises do not prove
conclusion
ii. strong inductive the truth of premises prove
conclusion
iii. Cogent inductive strong inductive with true
premises
2) Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics
a. Utilitarianism maximize happiness
i. Act utilitarianism small scale thinking. Ex drive
through a red light when no one is around
ii. Rule utilitarianism large scale thinking. Ex never
drive through a red light because if everyone did it
bad things
3) Divine command theory and Cultural relativism
a. Divine command theory - actions are right or wrong
because God says so. God creates the moral law
i. The Euthyphro Dilemma is it a good action loved by
gods because it is good, or because is it good
because gods love it?
b. Cultural relativism different cultures have different moral
codes. No culture is better than another. There is no right
moral code.

i. Rachels thinks that some elements of CR are correct,

but that mostly it is a false theory
4) Paternalism, pro and con. Particularly Goldman.
a. Pros of paternalism
i. Doctors know best. They have years of medical
knowledge and experience. Their decision probably
has the best outcome for the patient.
ii. Giving too much information to patient might be a
detriment to their health
iii. Power to prevent harm toward others
b. Cons of paternalism
i. Patients want self-determination. Autonomy is
their priority Goldman
ii. Doctors have a lot of power, can abuse it
iii. Patients might not trust doctors
5) The topic of truth telling.
a. Truth telling - should doctors always tell patients the truth?
Should they be paternalistic?
b. Beneficent view against truth telling
i. can lead to anxiety, health problems, even death
c. Autonomy view for truth telling
i. Lying to patients denies them the chance to make
very different life choices - might act differently if
they knew they were dying
ii. Patients would not trust doctors
d. Cullen and Klein
e.
6) Informed consent (including the very latest topic on Jehovahs
witnesses and rationality)
a. 3 requirements for informed consent
i. Must be autonomous
ii. Must be well-informed
iii. Must agree to medical treatment
b. Jehovahs witnesses religious group that rejects blood
transfusions
c. Faden and Beauchamp
10 papers to focus on
homies
"The Refutation of Medical Paternalism," Alan Goldman
Two types of harm
Paternalism is unjustified
Autonomy is the most important thing, health is secondary
"Why Doctors Should Intervene," Terrence F. Ackerman

Patients are not autonomous due to illness

Doctors and patients should work together to restore true
autonomy of patient
Autonomy, Futility, and the Limits of Medicine," Robert L. Schwartz
If patients are autonomous, should doctors obey all their
requests?
NO, futile treatment is not allowed
"On Telling Patients the Truth," Mack Lipkin
Its okay to lie to patients for their good
Paternalistic
"On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives," Immanuel Kant
Always tell the truth
Rule utilitarian
Categorical imperative
"Respect for Patients, Physicians, and the Truth," Susan Cullen and
Margaret Klein
Lying to patients is wrong. They should be autonomous.
Its okay to lie when there is minimal risk and maximal gain
Specialness argument
"Why Privacy Is Important," James Rachels
"privacy is necessary if we are to maintain the variety of social
relationships with other people that we want to have
The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. James Rachels
Argument for cultural relativism
o P1: Different cultures have diff moral codes
o P2: Right and wrong are only matter of opinion
o C: No moral code is the right one
Counter argument according to Rachels
o According to this, the worst of evils such as Hitler would
not be considered wrong. Since cultural relativism is all
about tolerance, you have to tolerate other peoples beliefs
no matter how bad they are. Thus, moral progress is a no
can do.
"The Concept of Informed Consent," Ruth R. Faden and Tom L.
Beauchamp
Informed consent 1 signing legal paperwork
Informed consent 2 patient truly understand treatment. Takes
partial responsibility. They believe this is the true meaning of IC.
"Should Informed Consent Be Based on Rational Beliefs?," Julian
Savulescu and Richard W. Momeyer
being autonomous requires that a person hold rational beliefs

physicians should not only provide relevant information but

"assist patients to think more clearly and rationally. [Physicians]
should care more about the rationality of patients' beliefs."

Focus on Goldman
5 constraints of Ackerman
MC
Short answer
Essay
Write more if there are more points
Problems of some of each persons arguments