Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardPrinciple - Justify

Medical Ethicist: A pharmaceutical firm with limited manufacturing capacity must choose whether to produce Drug X or Drug Y. Drug X provides a complete cure for a very rare and debilitating disease, while Drug Y provides moderate relief for a minor but extremely common ailment. Although the firm can produce enough of Drug X to treat only fifty patients a year, and enough of Drug Y to treat tens of thousands, the firm should choose to produce Drug X.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the medical ethicist's reasoning?

  1. A
    When forced to allocate limited manufacturing resources, a decision-maker should prioritize the production of treatments that provide therapeutic benefits to the greatest possible number of individuals.
  2. B
    A pharmaceutical firm is morally justified in choosing to produce a drug that benefits only a small number of people only if that drug provides a complete cure for a severe, debilitating disease.
  3. C
    If a pharmaceutical firm chooses to allocate its resources to produce a treatment for a rare and debilitating disease, that treatment must offer a complete cure rather than merely moderate relief.
  4. Whenever one must choose between a course of action that completely cures a small number of people with a severe condition and one that provides partial relief to a large number of people with a minor condition, the former course of action should be selected.Answer
  5. E
    Any pharmaceutical company that develops a complete cure for a debilitating disease has a moral obligation to manufacture it in quantities sufficient to treat everyone who suffers from the disease.

Answer

The principle stating that completely curing a small number of people with a severe condition should be prioritized over providing partial relief to a large number of people with a minor condition.
The correct answer provides a broad conditional rule that exactly matches the scenario in the stimulus. The stimulus establishes a choice between completely curing a small number of people of a severe condition (Drug X) and providing partial relief to a large number of people with a minor condition (Drug Y). The principle dictates that in exactly this situation, the former course of action (Drug X) must be selected, thereby perfectly justifying the ethicist's conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the firm should choose to produce Drug X.
Understanding the conclusion is required to know what needs to be justified.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Drug X cures a rare/debilitating disease but treats only 50 patients. Drug Y provides moderate relief for a minor/common ailment and treats tens of thousands. The firm must choose between them.
The premises contain the factual conditions that the principle must connect to the conclusion.
3
Determine the logical gap.
The argument assumes that completely curing a few people of a severe condition is preferable to moderately relieving many people of a minor condition.
To justify the conclusion, a principle must establish that these specific characteristics of Drug X make it the morally correct choice over Drug Y.
4
Evaluate the options to find a sufficient principle.
The correct option acts as a sufficient conditional rule (If choosing between curing few/severe and relieving many/minor -> choose curing few/severe) which perfectly aligns with the facts to guarantee the conclusion.
A 'Principle - Justify' question requires a rule that, when applied to the premises, proves the conclusion to be true.

Key Concept

Principle - Justify
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Principle - Justify

More questions from this topic