BMAT Essay Marking Thread

'A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone' Charles Darwin.

Explain what this statement means. Argue that scientific enquiry benefits from personal wishes and affections. To what extent do you think a scientist should have a 'mere heart of stone'?

By stating that 'a scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone', Darwin implies that scientists should always stay critically minded and resilient to the potentially harmful effects that personal emotions can have on the scientific process.

Personal wishes and emotions can benefit scientific enquiry by providing a strong motive to discover something new. Many scientists undertake work such as developing new cancer treatments because they have a personal desire to help the millions of people affected by this illness every year. Furthermore, scientists who have just mapped the entire human genome did not do it simply for the scientific thrill, but instead because it may lead to us to develop future treatments for genetic disorders. In medicine, having a 'mere heart of stone' will prevent doctors from being empathetic towards their patients. By seeing things from the patients point of view, this can aid diagnosis and will help to develop a good doctor-patient rapport, making it easier to discover information from the patient that may be crucial in the scientific enquiry. Additionally, scientists who are cold hearted might not have good working relationships with their colleagues. This does certainly not aid the scientific process. [Good points here and nice variation of examples]

There are many benefits in science to having a 'mere heart of stone'. Keeping a critical mind is essential when reviewing research papers or analysing statistical data. Scientists cannot allow their emotions to cloud any judgements or conclusions they reach, even if it is against their personal wishes. However, scientists must be able to understand the ethical implications that often arise from from their work, one example being the use of animals in drug development. We must also remember that scientific discoveries can be used dangerously, such as the use of radioactive isotopes in weapons of mass destruction. [perhaps start a new paragraph here, to emphasise you are concluding now] I personally believe that scientists do have a moral obligation to ensure that new discoveries are used in appropriate, ethical ways. This does not involve a complete abstinence from having personal wishes and affections.

Hi, I have a question about how to structure this essay.

The question is, "He who conceals his disease cannot expect to be cured" (Ethiopian proverb).
-Why would a patient conceal his or her disease?
-How should a doctor deal with a secretive patient?
-How can a doctor balance the need to treat the patient with the patient's preference for privacy?

When I wrote this essay, I just had three paragraphs, one to address each point. I realised that I didn't have a conclusion, and normally you would have to weigh up all the points and to give your own opinion. But that's not one of the prompts, do I still need to do this in order to get a good mark?

well no, you follow what they ask. Sometimes a question given won't be an argument that you can debate.

But do try to find a good way to close in a short conclusion. Perhaps you'd do that by including things you've said. This does sound like a difficult essay to write.

If you want 5 marks, you need a conclusion just to collect together everything you've said. It's in the mark scheme.

Anyone mind a read?

It is an obscenity that rich people can buy better medical treatment than poor people.

Explain the argument behind the statement. What assumptions does it make? Argue to the
contrary, that patients are entitled to spend money on better healthcare if they choose to.

The statement argues that a person's health should not depend on their economic status, and that healthcare should be equal. However, it assumes that private medical treatment is better than that of the NHS; in terms of the service that doctors provide, this is not the case, as all doctors are trained under the NHS.

The most lucrative reason for patients to choose private healthcare is the ability to 'skip' the waiting list. By doing this, they are setting up a two tiered system: one of faster treatment, and one of slower treatment, based solely on the premise of money, thus effectively buying 'better' healthcare and 'better' life.

However, by removing themselves from the waiting list, these private patients are also freeing up space in already cramped hospitals, and decreasing the waiting time for other patients. Furthermore, the private sector also outsource tasks such as imaging to the NHS hospitals, which incurs a cost, and therefore, the NHS is able to provide better healthcare using this extra money. The private patients also pay the taxes which contribute towards the NHS, as well as those towards the private hospitals, in effect paying double for their treatment, thus contributing to the care of the poor.

Furthermore, the freedom to spend money is a pillar of capitalism: if it is obscene that rich people can buy better medical treatment, then the same should be said of education, housing, and food, which is directly linked to healthcare. Therefore, this argument proposes that people should be free in what they choose, and regards individual rights as more important, rather than societal equality.

In the end, the NHS was established for everyone. Rich people still have the choice of public healthcare, but also that of private. It can therefore be argued that the poor have their freedom restricted as a result of their economic status, because they do not have the choice of private healthcare. The existence of private healthcare therefore means that health depends on economic status, therefore deepening the inequality in society, even if the individualistic intent of private patients do have some beneficial societal repercussions.

Hello, I've written an essay (really not sure if it's good or bad), and you've all been so great on this thread. Please can someone check this essay out, and critique it and give their opinions on what grade it should be awarded.

Question:

Democratic freedom means there should be no restriction on what may be said in public.

Explain what you think democratic freedom means. Argue that there should be restrictions on what is said in public. To what extent do you agree that there should be limitations on what can be said in public?


My response:

Democracy is an organisation, power or command, chosen by popular vote, in which decisions are made by the people. Democratic freedom is thus having the right of expression in such a constitution, such as the right of free speech.

A freedom of speech will very much attract extreme [extremist] groups, who will exploit this privilege and proclaim extreme ideas and say hurtful things. This can have detrimental effects on some members of society such as children, who could be coaxed by the extremists view points. In addition the right of free speech in public could lead to discrimination, as the majority may abuse, disrespect and suppress the minority. A conflict of ideas, opinions and thoughts can create friction between groups and could potentially lead to a civil war. Consequently there should be forms of restriction on what can be said in public.

I think a freedom of speech allows us to see alternate view points, and can be very beneficial to society as it can be a learning experience. However I do believe that free speech doesn't mean free of boundaries. There ought to be restrictions on the proclamation of unjust, extreme and discriminatory ideas. Although such restrictions are hard to regulate, they are not impossible. It is very much feasible to conduct a peaceful protest which doesn't lead to violence and destruction. [are there any other arguments in agreement with the statement?]

In conclusion, a democratic freedom such as freedom of speech is indeed a privilege, although a utilitarian stand should be applied to such an issue [why? I see what you're saying, trying to look at the long term benefits of everybody. But this isn't the right word, because it contradicts the whole idea of free speech. The idea is that you have a right to talk in public, within reason, even if it's not popular. Technically you could be just 5 people, and you're still allowed to offend half of the population with your views, within reason. That wouldn't be utilitarian]. It is important that what is being said isn’t harming anyone [what do you mean by harm? Verbal abuse? jokes? bullying and inciting hatred? What is acceptable, what should be regulated? give a reason. Peaceful protest for example doesn't mean that it won't offend anyone], and so there should be some forms of restrictions on what can actually be said in Public [public].

well no, you follow what they ask. Sometimes a question given won't be an argument that you can debate.

But do try to find a good way to close in a short conclusion. Perhaps you'd do that by including things you've said. This does sound like a difficult essay to write.

This is a good essay. You've thought about both sides. Read my comments. I think you needed to go further into the subjectivity of what is acceptable to say in public. Cover yourself, instead of asserting things, show that people could have valid arguments on both sides. If you factor this in, the argument becomes more convincing.

Hi This is one of my first essays. I did it in half an hour. Any thoughts? Thanks!

"Mapping the human genome has been compared with putting a man on the moon." Michael Dexter

What do you understand by the statement above?
Explain why the study of genetics could be helpful in medicine.
Discuss the extent to which reliance on genetics may be dangerous.

Putting a man on the moon was a pivotal moment in history and I believe the statement is suggesting the mapping of the human genome was a momentous event. While sending a man to the moon has begun a whole new phase in space exploration, the mapping of the human genome could mark the beginning of new treatments in medicine. Figuratively speaking the statement could be comparing the mapping of the human genome to discovering a whole new world, opening up countless possibilities.

For instance, in medicine the study of genetics could lead to so many new cures and procedures. Already scientists are developing gene therapies that could potentially cure diseases caused by faulty genes, such as type 1 diabetes. Genetic diseases such as Down’s syndrome and Edward’s syndrome could be treated and scientists may even be able to find the long-searches for cure for cancer, which is caused by an abnormality in cell DNA. Further research could be done on stem cells to determine which genes need to be switched on or off to perhaps grow whole organs and tissues “in vitro”. As genes code for everything that makes up our bodies, genetics could help us learn so much more about what goes wrong with our bodies.

It is important to be aware that a reliance on genetics could be dangerous. If we were to rely on genetics to cure many diseases and disorders we could lose sight of other important cures and treatments that do not rely on genetics, for instance lifestyle changes such as exercise and diet. There is also the risk that experimenting and working with genes could give rise to new mutations and perhaps new diseases that could be even more dangerous and difficult to cure than the ones we were initially attempting to treat. In this way genetics could do more harm than good.

Overall I think mapping the human genome was a very important step for the development of medicine but we must also be cautious as this great potential also carries significant risks.

Good essay overall, I like the introduction a lot with the idea of exploration and countless possibilities of both space travel and in terms of microbiology.
You have discussed well the implications of genetics on medicine using good examples to back up your argument.
I would say that you talked well about the how a reliance on genetics could cause other problems especially with scientific research, like not enough emphasis on other areas.

I would say that you could potentially bring in the slippery slope argument into the last bit, like how far people could go with genetics and dwell into areas where humans should not really be going. Eventually genetics could replace every organ or something, and so like you said there would not be enough emphasis on other scientific research.

This is my first time doing a critique so sorry if it's lame but I gave it a shot I liked your essay especially your intro nice short, snappy and straight to the point Could perhaps talk in your conclusion a bit more? That's about it.

In terms of grading easily a 3A because you touched on every aspect of the question. I will let the more experienced people tell you your actual score