#13 - Ethicist: Studies have documented the capacity of

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

I am not understanding why B is correct?

I negated the conclusion and got (not ) prescribe patients for satisfaction placebo doesnt benefit patient

I thought A was addressing this sufficient negated part?

Thankyou
Sarah

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, srcline,

The trick with answer choice B here is that it provides the necessary link between the placebo being ethically questionable and the motivations for the placebo possibly being bad. If B is not true, then the motivation is irrelevant to how ethical administering a placebo is - it just doesn't matter, so a doctor administering a placebo just to give the patient satisfaction is still ethical. Or at least is not unethical for that reason.

Answer choice A is no good because we're not talking about what's a suitable medical treatment, we're talking about what's ethically questionable or not.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[reengutierrez]

Nice reasoning. Thanks for this thread.

[sodomojo]

Would (A) have been correct had it read, "A patient's psychological satisfaction is not relevant to the ethical justification for administering a placebo?"

[Eric Ockert]

Hi sodomojo

I think it would be.

If you apply the Assumption Negation Technique to your statement, and a patient's psychological satisfaction IS relevant to the ethical justification for administering a placebo, then it seems that the doctors' behavior is perfectly ethical. In other words, the author's conclusion does not seem to follow. So, since taking your statement away (logically negating it) hurts the argument, then the argument would have required that statement in the first place. Hence, it would be an assumption.

[nutcracker]

Hi,

Is answer choice (C) wrong because the word "indefensible" is too strong for an assumption? In other words, if (C) had "Medical treatment that relies on the placebo effect alone is ethically questionable", would it be an equally good choice as (B)? Thanks a lot!

[nicholaspavic]

Hi nutcracker,

Yes. Definitely "indefensible" is overkill. The stimulus is saying it is merely "questionable." Thus, even if you tried the Assumption Negation technique, it really wouldn't dispute the author's conclusion that it's "questionable." Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps!

[KG!]

I'm still not clear on why A is wrong. This was my thought process:

Premise: if a placebo benefits a patient, a doctor might, for example, have prescribed it just to give the patient satisfaction
that something was being done.
Conclusion: Administering placebos is nonetheless ethically questionable.

My prephrase/thoughts: Satisfaction matters?

This is why I chose A and was between C as well. When you negate A does that not destroy the argument or weaken it? If a patient's psych is a consideration then it falls a part, no? I guess I'm not really seeing where the motivation of the doctor comes into play.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi KG,

The problem is that answer choice (A) doesn't quite address the conclusion. The conclusion says that the practice is not ethical. Answer choice (A) does not address the ethical basis for administering medication at all. The patient's satisfaction is not really relevant to the ethics without a more clear connection.

Hope that helps!

[saiffshaikhh@gmail.com]

I chose (D) for this question and thought that when negating, it fit the necessary assumption. Would D negated be "The pain relief produced by the placebo effect does not justify the deception involved in administering a placebo"?. Was this an instance of misunderstanding the argument/stimulus, which is why B was the correct answer?