Medical Ethics: SQA Advanced Higher RMPS quiz quiz

On the sanctity of life alone

On duty and universal rules

On the patient's wealth

On its consequences: the greatest wellbeing for the greatest number

Always follow the patient's family

Allocate organs by wealth

Maximise total happiness

Treat people as ends in themselves, never merely as means, and follow universal duties

Human life is intrinsically valuable and should not be intentionally ended

Autonomy overrides all other considerations

A life's value depends on its quality

Organs may always be sold

Sanctity, quality, duty, consequence

Autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice

Consent, death, allocation, sale

Liberty, equality, fraternity, justice

Because they are religious

Because they apply only to abortion

Because they do not rank themselves, so judgement is needed when they conflict

Because there are only two of them

Because it sets the weight of the foetus's right to life

Because it determines the woman's income

Because it decides organ allocation

Because it has no bearing on the issue

That the foetus is never a person

That a right to life does not entail a right to use another person's body, so abortion can be permissible even granting foetal status

That all abortion is wrong

That the foetus has no value

Active is voluntary; passive is involuntary

Active is letting die; passive is killing

Active is a deliberate act to end life; passive is allowing death by withholding or withdrawing treatment

They are the same

Killing a patient on request

An act whose good effect (pain relief) is intended, even if death is a foreseen but unintended side effect

Selling organs

Ignoring patient consent

That permitting voluntary euthanasia risks sliding to non-voluntary or involuntary cases and pressure on the vulnerable

That it always relieves suffering

That euthanasia is too expensive

That autonomy is unlimited

That passive euthanasia is impossible

That killing is always permissible

That if the outcome and intention are the same, letting die can be morally equivalent to killing

That double effect is the only valid principle

They are identical

Opt-in requires explicit consent to donate; opt-out (presumed consent) treats everyone as a donor unless they register a refusal

Opt-in presumes consent; opt-out requires it

Opt-out applies only to living donors

It allocates organs by wealth

It bans organ donation

It is utilitarian: it increases the supply of organs and saves more lives

It respects autonomy most fully

By medical need, likelihood of benefit and fairness, raising questions of justice

By wealth and social status

Only to the youngest patients

Randomly, with no criteria

It respects autonomy too much

It would reduce the organ supply

It has no objections

It risks exploiting the poor and treats the body as a commodity, offending dignity and justice