Question 1

The California Supreme Court ruled that the therapists at the University of California, Berkeley, were not negligent in failing to warn Tatiana Tarasoff that one of her patients had threatened Tarasoff because a therapist has an absolute duty to protect her patient's confidentiality.

Accepted Answer

The California Supreme Court actually ruled in 1976 that the therapists at the University of California, Berkeley, had a duty to protect Tarasoff from the dangerous behavior of their patient and that they were negligent in not warning her of the specific threat. The court recognized that the therapist's duty to protect potential victims takes precedence over their duty to maintain the confidentiality of their patient's information. This case established the legal precedent known as the Tarasoff duty to warn, which requires mental health professionals to take reasonable steps to protect individuals who are threatened by their clients.

Question 2

There is a cost to prizing the right of parents to make decisions about their children's best interests.

Accepted Answer

While parents have a fundamental right to make decisions about their children's welfare, there may be cases where the state or other authorities need to intervene if the child's safety or well-being is at risk. This can create a tension between parental autonomy and the state's duty to protect vulnerable children. Additionally, there may be disagreements about what is in the child's best interests, and these conflicts can be difficult to resolve in a way that satisfies all parties involved.

Question 3

Anita Catlin argues that in cases where the patients are Jehovah's Witness children, physicians should explore alternative treatments not requiring the use of blood products.

Accepted Answer

Anita Catlin believes that physicians should consider alternative treatments for Jehovah's Witness children that do not involve the use of blood products, due to the religious beliefs of the parents and the potential risks associated with blood transfusions.

Question 4

Cullen and Klein argue that the principle of respect for persons grounds physicians' duties not to deceive their patients.

Accepted Answer

Cullen and Klein argue that respecting the autonomy and dignity of patients requires physicians to refrain from deceptive practices in their interactions with patients.

Question 5

Mark Siegler argues that the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship can be maintained in modern hospital setting by making sophisticated use of new electronic recording keeping.

Accepted Answer

Mark Siegler actually argues that the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship is increasingly difficult to maintain in modern hospital settings, especially with the advent of electronic record keeping, which can potentially make private information more accessible to unauthorized individuals.

Question 6

Patients have historically, sociologically and psychologically held an equal and independent role with respect to physicians.

Accepted Answer

Historically, sociologically, and psychologically, patients have held a subordinate role in relation to physicians. It is only in recent years that there has been a shift towards a more equal partnership between patient and physician.

Question 7

From a medical standpoint, children's interests can differ from those of their parents.

Accepted Answer

Children may have different medical interests and concerns than their parents, based on factors such as age, gender, and individual health needs. It is important for healthcare providers to listen to and address the unique needs of each patient.

Question 8

Michelle Gold believes that truth-telling should be viewed as a dialogue between moral agents.

Accepted Answer

Michelle Gold argues in favor of a dialogue-based approach to truth-telling where moral agents engage with each other to arrive at a shared understanding of reality. This approach emphasizes the importance of building relationships and fostering mutual trust and respect in the pursuit of truth.

Question 9

Autonomy is considered to be an absolute and unconditional right that cannot be infringed upon under any circumstances.

Accepted Answer

Autonomy is not an absolute and unconditional right. It may be limited or infringed upon in certain circumstances, such as when the person's actions would cause harm to themselves or others, or when it conflicts with other important values or principles.

Question 10

When parents fail to take reasonable steps to secure the welfare of their children, then doing so becomes a matter of interest to the state.

Accepted Answer

This is typically true, as the state has a responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of all individuals within its jurisdiction, including children. If parents are unable or unwilling to provide adequate care for their children, the state may intervene to protect the children and ensure their welfare.

Question 11

According to Eugene Rosam, it is unacceptable to try to convince Jehovah's Witness parents to give up their beliefs.

Accepted Answer

The answer of According to Eugene Rosam, it is unacceptable...

Question 12

To act autonomously is to have our actions be the outcome of our self-determining deliberations and choices.

Accepted Answer

The answer of To act autonomously is to have our...

Question 13

Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to cap the portion sizes of sugar-sweetened drinks in New York City was an example of the application of &#34;personal paternalism&#34;.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to cap the portion...

Question 14

The cause of Robyn Twitchell's death was so rare and complex that it is unlikely that she could have been successfully treated even if her parents had taken her to a hospital.

Accepted Answer

The answer of The cause of Robyn Twitchell's death was...

Question 15

According to Onora O'Neill the autonomy of actual patients is limited.

Accepted Answer

The answer of According to Onora O'Neill the autonomy of...

Deck 1: Physicians, Patients, and Others: Roles and Responsibilities