Dowling College PHL 142A
Philosophy of Psychiatry Spring 2002
Final Exam. 140 minutes. Open book. No single
answer should be more than 750 words long.
I will give you one case to
discuss. Your role is to advise various
people involved in the case. You should
discuss the following points.
· What courses of action are
available?
· What further information
would be helpful to obtain before making a decision?
· What are the ethical and
philosophical issues involved? What are
the main positions that can be taken on these issues?
· Who should make the
decision? Who should be consulted in
the decision-making? Do some people
have no right to be involved in the process?
· What would you recommend be
done?
I will also ask you to
answer two questions out of four of the following five; so you need to prepare
at least 3 answers.
1. Explain Ronald Dworkin’s main argument
against the overdiagnosis of depression in “The Medicalization of
Unhappiness.” Briefly discuss some
strengths and weaknesses of his argument.
2.
Explain why Bruce Winick, in his article, “The Right to Refuse Mental Health
Treatment,” thinks that giving patients a choice about how they are treated is
helpful and even therapeutic.
3. Explain why James Drane defends the idea of
a sliding scale of competency in “The Many Faces of Competency,” and outline
the advantages and disadvantages of such an aproach.
4. What answer do Grisso and Appelbaum give to
their own question, “Is It Unethical to Offer Predictions of Future
Violence?” What is their main argument?
5. Explain the legal issues concerning
violating confidentiality as set out in Paul Appelbaum’s article, “The Duty to
Protect Potential Victims of Patients’ Violence”. Pay particular attention to the Tarasoff case.