Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorPrinciple - 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.Cevap
  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.

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

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.

Anahtar Kavram

Principle - Justify
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Principle - Justify

Bu konudan daha fazla soru