Q9

[geverett]

Having a bit of trouble with this one. I think what they are referring to is in lines 41 - 50. I chose E b/c I inferred "observance of established moral rules" in the answer choice to be equivalent to "treatment in accordance with generally acceptable standards of professionalism" in the passage. Of course they refer in line 48 to this as the "core value of beneficence". I guess you could synthesize "beneficence" with "patients need for assurance" in the previous sentence and arrive at the credited response. I got rid of D partly b/c of lines 17 - 19. Thoughts?

[maryadkins]

Where does the passage mention something that reformers have explicitly NOT had an issue with? Line 47--the value of beneficence, "which does not actually conflict with most reformers' purposes." (D) fits the bill.

This is an identification question. It's asking us what the passage cites. So anything not cited by the passage as not difficult for reformers can be cut.

(A) isn't mentioned at all.
(B) is likewise not mentioned.
(C) isn't mentioned.
(E) brings up moral rules. Moral rules are mentioned in lines 13 and 42 as an area of conflict reformers have with the code.

Be careful not to read "moral rules" into "standards of professionalism." They could possible overlap, but since we actually have the word "moral" used in the passage, and it's in a context that indicates reformers take issue with the code because of it, we need to stick with the passage's use of the term.

[geverett]

Hey Mary,
Sorry I accidentally wrote C when I meant to write D followed by a reason for why I eliminated it as the correct answer. I got rid of D, because 17 - 19 seems to have critics downplaying the emphasis on individual patients. Of course this might be argued that they only argue against this when it is done at the expense of wider social context.

Also, while it is not specifically cited if you start reading in lines 6 - 12 it seems to imply a criticism of two things one of which is "to act primarily for the benefit and not the harm of patients" from "powerful scientific and societal forces". Is it not safe to say that the people who are challenging it could be considered reformers?

I know this seems silly that anybody would disagree with acting primarily for patients benefit, but the context of 6 - 12 seems to imply one.

thoughts?