What role does the sentence about open placebos play in the argument?
Doctors have long known that a sugar pill can relieve pain, and some argue that prescribing one is harmless kindness. The reasoning is that if a patient feels better, the means hardly matter. The reasoning fails on two counts. First, a prescription that rests on deception cannot survive discovery: once patients learn that doctors sometimes dispense dummy pills, every future prescription becomes suspect, including those that work. Second, the patient is denied the chance to consent to the treatment actually given. Evidence suggests that placebos may work even when patients know what they are taking, which removes the supposed need for deceit. If honesty costs little, the case for lying has nothing left to stand on.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: D. It removes the premise that deception is needed for placebos to work
- Step 1: The pro-deception view assumes patients must not know. The sentence says placebos may work even when patients do know.
- Step 2: That undermines the supposed need for deceit.
Answer
It removes the premise that deception is needed for placebos to work.
Why not the others: The claim is only that placebos 'may work', not that they equal active drugs; consent was already covered, and nothing concedes the opposing view.
Practise more Medicine and honesty.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.