BMAT Essay Marking Thread

In a modern society, individuals should be allowed to do whatever they want.
Explain the above statement. Give an example of a situation in which individuals should not be allowed to do as they want. Decide whether or not individuals should be allowed to do as they want in a free society.

The above statement refers to a fundamental human right. It implies that any human has a free will and should be able to perform and carry out any action he wishes to do so, regardless of how moral and acceptable the actions are.
By being able to do whatever one wishes, the person is discarding his surrounding, and in such a situation where another being is harmed or under risk, the free will law should not be applicable. For example, if a one wishes to physically abuse another being, it would be causing harm to the other being yet fulfilling his own desires. Furthermore, this would be the case with any criminal offense [offence is the UK spelling I think].
[I would have talked about why somebody might think it is important for people to be able to do what they want. Then you can weigh these reasons up with the reasons why we should not be able to do anything we want. This is the whole point of the essay. Weighing things up and coming to a valid well thought out conclusion. So when you're planning, think about reasons. Why might somebody think a particular view. Are these reasons valid? Does it depend? Tell us]

On the other hand, it could be argued that no individual has a responsibility to look after the wellbeing of another, and therefore should be allowed to do whatever he wants. If one is looking after himself and has the inner satisfaction after carrying out whatever task he wants, it is not his business how it is affecting other beings, because as an individual, his priority should be himself.

Despite this having a free will with no laws would cause the society to lack discipline and it would lead to an uncivilized nation. Additionally doing what one wills could disrespect other people and this is the borderline at which free will cannot exist as a rule on its own.
[there was no convincing argument in agreement of that statement]

Hi, mark and comments would be greatly appreciated!!

You Must be honest and open and act with integrity.

Explain what is meant by the above statement. Why might honest, openness and integrity be important in a doctor? Under what circumstances might a doctor be justified in being less than perfectly honest or open in the course of their professional practice?


The essence of the statement is that a good doctor must possess the qualities of honesty, openness and must act with integrity to the best of their abilities. Honesty in a doctor is considered to be suitably informing the patient and disclosing any information - that you can -if they specifically ask. Integrity is viewed as the respectful and morally suitable approach to treating patients. Being open is implied as being willing to address the needs of the patient.
Medicine is the relationship between doctor, patient and treatment. This relationship is based on trust, which is strengthened through the doctor maintaining an honest approach, thus retaining the patient's faith in the ability of the doctor. For example, if a patient demands the likelihood of a disease, an honest doctor will inform them of their odds and possible future treatment. Honesty and being open are often inter linked attributes, that co-exist ensuring the patient feels comfortable and confident in the care they are receiving. This is essential as a patient is unlikely to divulge any necessary past medical history, if they feel that their doctor is inadequate in their bedside manner. Integrity is highly desired, as it is fundamental in a doctor treating patients with the required respect, and is also utilised to determine the outcome of ethical situations. An example of this is when a patient refuses treatment, a doctor must comply with their wishes regardless of their own beliefs, provided the patient is competent. I believe a good doctor will incorporate all three attributes.
There are only a few exceptional circumstances a doctor may be less honest. In the case of a patient who is considered to be of a higher suicide risk if informed wholly of their condition, a doctor may only partially disclose information. Alternatively for the success of a placebo drug, the doctor must only partially be honest, this is however in the best interests of the patient. A doctor may also feel that complying with a patient's request to not inform relatives of their condition, is being dishonest however this is necessary as confidentiality is priority.
To conclude a doctor must successfully encompass all three attributes to fulfill and deliver patients' needs. A delicate balance must be employed surrounding honesty, where the doctor's own moral code must determine the action in each scenario.

Hello

Perhaps it could be a bit longer. How was it to write? Were you rushed to do it in the 30mins? Did you do a plan, if so, for how long? You'll find that with an informative plan (choosing your question and doing the plan could be done in 5-8mins if you're quick and decisive) you'll write a lot quicker, as you've already given yourself a specific direction.

anyway about this essay, I've put some comments in the quote. Well done on it. You've made it clear how you've changed from one side of the argument to the other, making it definitely a score of at least 3.

Notice, you didn't actually say why free will is good. Why would somebody think we should be able to do what we want? Cover these reasons in your plan. Really read the question, and try to understand quickly what the building blocks for your essay will be. Just so that when you're writing, it'll be almost like a checklist. You'll know you've mentioned all the things you need, to come to an informed well thought out conclusion.

You should also try to come up with more complex/sophisticated arguments. That doesn't mean that you should have great knowledge of the topic, it doesn't mean you should use big words. But it does mean that you need to think beyond the surface, because everybody writing this essay would have said the things you have said. Do you get the point I'm making? Take some time to really go beyond the typical arguments. It might be an interesting example. It might be from considering different points, you've only said one for both arguments. If it depends, explain how it depends, if this were to happen, perhaps this would be acceptable. If that were to happen, perhaps that would be right.

if you'd like a score, I'd say 3A
hope that helps

'It is ridiculous to treat the living body as a mechanism'

The statement is implying that the body is not a machine and people who believe that it is are deluded. This idea stems from the fact that every 'body' is an individual with thoughts, feelings, ideas and beliefs.

Homo sapiens are the highest species of primates that have evolved over the hundreds of millions of years into our everyday fully functioning individuals living in our society. The complex development of our brain makes people into unique individuals who not only function to survive and reproduce, but also have religious beliefs, grand ideas, dreams and even some believe, a soul.

However, on the basic cellular level everybody has a very similar structure; from electrical signals that power our heart, to chemical reactions that maintain [the] homoeostasis of our body. When something goes wrong or breaks, we all go to see a specialist 'mechanic' or more commonly known as a doctor, who can fix the broken parts. [these are interesting ideas, well done] Therefore, even though we have the mental capacity to live a fulfilled life, when there is some problem with our 'meat suit' [remember the formality of your writing. Perhaps 'when a problem with our 'meat suit' arises...' would have been better] we slowly lose that ability to function.

Consequently, I believe that although every individual has feelings and great mental processing power, on the basic cellular level the body we have is still a very complex, not yet fully understood, mechanism. Therefore, personally I disagree with the statement that doesn't take into account the building structure of the living body.

Would like some feedback please:

“Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.” Aristotle.
What does it mean to educate the ‘hearts’ of new doctors? How can this best be accomplished? What are the dangers in educating the minds of new doctors, but not their ‘hearts’?

The statement says that new doctors must be “educating the heart”, which means to teach these new doctors compassion and personal skills to be used alongside scientific knowledge in treating patients. These personal skills are skills which cannot be taught or learnt in lectures or textbooks, but which are necessary for all doctors and healthcare professionals. Thus this is why “educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.”[this is all really good, however the last statement doesn't add anything]

There are several ways to teach new doctors these skills and to educate their ‘hearts.’ Firstly, the positions of doctor and patient are completely different, and there is a high chance that a new doctor won’t be in the position of a patient with a life-threatening illness, for example. It follows that the doctor will not have the emotional experience of what the patient is currently undergoing; the only way to the doctor will be able to ‘educate the heart’ here is to discuss, with the patient, his anxieties and concerns and his opinions on his own treatment. This will allow the doctor to develop a sense of how the patient is feeling and therefore how best to interact with the patient in order to keep in balance with the patient’s state of mind. In this way, the doctor has learnt compassion. [and empathy which is arguably more important. Fundamental in understanding the needs of the patient.] Moreover, talking to his patients is one way a doctor can provide a more holistic treatment – that is, to treat the patient physically and psychologically. Talking to patients and aiming for holistic treatment are two ways to educate the heart; a third is to act sympathetically and supportively at all times with all patients. By doing this, a doctor learns personal skills by caring for his patient’s wellbeing.

The statement states that “educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all” [repetition of the statement again, which is unnecessary.] and so not educating a doctor’s heart can cause dangers. After all, the primary role of doctors as [is] someone who cares for and treats the sick, implies a strong sense of compassion. Without said compassion, a doctor can become barbaric in his treatment, prescribing treatment that might be physically beneficial to the patient, but which causes great pain or other psychological harm.[barbaric isn't the right word. However this is a good point] It follows that by doing this, a doctor can eventually act unethically by acting against a patient’s best interests. Furthermore, a patient [doctot...careful] with an uncaring personality can make the patient feel scared, isolated and uncomfortable. This is obviously not psychologically safe for the patient, and there is [a] danger the patient could develop depression or another mental condition.

In conclusion, there are several ways to educate a doctor’s mind outside of the classroom, and it is indeed essential that a doctor develops his compassion and personal skills, or else significant consequences can arise, in addition to the fact that the very definition of a good, responsible doctor is one that assumes great compassion.

Good on the whole, I would've included 4 points for and against the statement (that is quite a lot to fit on one A4) but nonetheless you developed your points well.

3.5A

Hi pride, sorry to put you on the spot. Any chance of a mark no need to review it. Or anyone else for this matter.
I'll do a couple now.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Hi I'd be very grateful if someone could mark my essay and give me a score! I did it in around 25 minutes (exam conditions) so had about 5 minutes to check it over.

Title: "Nothing is more fatal to health than over-care of it"
Write an essay in which you address the following points:
What constitutes 'over care' of health, and how can it be 'fatal'? What are the dangers in trying to 'minimise' care? How can a doctor take a balanced approach?

The above statement implies that doctors should not cross the boundary between essential medical care and "over care". "Over care" could be described as any non-essential treatment or suggestion. While this is subjective, non-essential care could constitute as taking control over life-style choices that do not necessarily directly damage health.

Fundamentally, we live in a society that values patient autonomy and therefore patients take responsibility and control over their own healthcare. A doctor has a duty to provide information regarding a patient's health, to the patient. However, there could be situations where a doctor would try to cover all aspects of a patient's healthcare, including life-style choices. If a doctor were to pressure a patient into quitting smoking or stopping drinking, the stress and pressure could lead to the patient turning to harder substances - this could be fatal to their health.[This could have been a stronger paragraph. You have only covered one aspect. More examples are necessary. An obvious example would be the prescription of preventative medication, that is having a negative effect. For example, a patient with a broken limb who is on calcium supplements to prevent it happening again, may experience thyroid problems which cause harm. Detection of beast cancer resulting in treatment, when the cancer would have had no effect is detrimental to the health of the individual. Is this over care? Should we let nature take its course at times? ]

On the other hand, 'minimising' health care could have adverse effects on the health of the society as a whole. If doctors were to show less interest in the health of a patient, how do we know whether patients would take responsibility for their own health, or fall down a slippery slope of carelessness? In addition to this, patients could turn to the internet when unsure about symptoms or furthermore, use treatments ordered from the internet, which could be detrimental to their health. [i like the last point very unique. You could also talk about in minimal health care, things like a vaccines would be reduced. Thus increased number of suffers.]

Essentially, a doctor should act as both a confidant and an advisor. Patients need to be well-educated in all aspects of their healthcare, and so their queries should be answered fully. However, rather than pressuring a patient, a doctor should suggest rather than force - decisions should be made by the patient, with less pressure or bias from the doctor.[Your final paragraph should address the question more. The statement is about different levels of care, not whether the patient should have more control. Look at the non essential treatment which is considered over care, should this treatment be reduced? How would the doctor know what is over care or what is necessary? ]

----

reading it over, it looks a little short.. but it filled the template and I have pretty small writing..
anyway, I'd appreciate some help!

also, i didn't leave spaces between paragraphs in the template - weird how short it looks when typed out!

You must be honest and open and act with integrity.

Explain what is meant by the above statement. Why might honest, openness and integrity be important in a doctor? Under what circumstances might a doctor be justified in being less than perfectly honest or open in the course of their professional practice?


The essence of the statement is that a good doctor must possess the qualities of honesty, openness and must act with integrity to the best of their abilities. Honesty in a doctor is considered to be suitably informing the patient and disclosing any information - that you can -if they specifically ask. Integrity is viewed as the respectful and morally suitable approach to treating patients. Being open is implied as being willing to address the needs of the patient.
Medicine is the relationship between doctor, patient and treatment [no it isn't. That's all involved, but that's not really what medicine is]. This relationship is based on trust, which is strengthened through the doctor maintaining an honest approach, thus retaining the patient's faith in the ability of the doctor. For example, if a patient demands the likelihood of a disease, an honest doctor will inform them of their odds and possible future treatment. Honesty and being open are often inter linked attributes, that co-exist ensuring the patient feels comfortable and confident in the care they are receiving. This is essential as a patient is unlikely to divulge any necessary past medical history, if they feel that their doctor is inadequate in their bedside manner. Integrity is highly desired, as it is fundamental in a doctor treating patients with the required respect, and is also utilised to determine the outcome of ethical situations. An example of this is when a patient refuses treatment, a doctor must comply with their wishes regardless of their own beliefs, provided the patient is competent. I believe a good doctor will incorporate all three attributes.
There are only a few exceptional circumstances a doctor may be less honest. In the case of a patient who is considered to be of a higher suicide risk if informed wholly of their condition, a doctor may only partially disclose information. Alternatively for the success of a placebo drug, the doctor must only partially be honest, this is however in the best interests of the patient. A doctor may also feel that complying with a patient's request to not inform relatives of their condition, is being dishonest however this is necessary as confidentiality is priority.
To conclude a doctor must successfully encompass all three attributes to fulfill and deliver patients' needs. A delicate balance must be employed surrounding honesty, where the doctor's own moral code must determine the action in each scenario.

Oh another thing, If i think my examples/ideas sound stupid to me.. should i still go ahead and write them?

Hi,
Not bad, try and address the question as fully as possible. Last paragraph could have been stronger. I've left some comments and some questions to make you think. Score 3a however with some more examples and being more direct this will go up.



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I've done this essay too. It's quite a good statement to do an essay on, because there's lots of things you could potentially say. With a question like this, always plan, when you're brainstorming, try to come up with things/examples most won't come up with.

And this is the first point I'll make. There are quite a few things you could have said. You only mention one thing for each argument (and you did it very well actually, well done).

Take a step back when you get a question. What do you know about that you could mention in the essay. Try to cover a few things, not just one. You could have talked about the world of work, about whether it was wise to make workers work doing the same repetitive work like a machine. You could talk about our need to take breaks, to have holidays, unlike machines. You could have talked about whether we always produce the same results, whether there is uniformity in our results. You could talk about how we can upgrade our knowledge - do more training/education, similar to upgrading your machinery. Demonstrate that you can draw upon a number of things to answer a question, and that you have some knowledge of society.
Think of a range of convincing arguments for both sides, then weigh them up in a conclusion.

I think the conclusion is a little confusing. To what extent do you agree? Make it clear what your opinion is and why, considering the value of both sides of the argument and prioritising.

You wanted a score? I'd say perhaps 3.5A, have those varied arguments and it'd certainly be a 4+

please do.

lol, you'll have to be fair and wait your turn lol. Now do you see why I'm annoyed? If you lot'd be fair and mark the odd one when you post your own, we wouldn't have a backlog of 8 essays.

This isn't the CV helper service.

In the modern age of science, the laws of natural selection no longer apply to humans.

What do you understand by the statement above? Can you suggest examples where natural selection still applies and examples where it does not? What factors affect whether natural selection applies to a species?

The statement imply implies that natural selection, which is the process whereby individuals who exhibit advantagous traits are able to survive, reproduce and have offsprings with the same traits which ensure long term survival, [putting the explanation here makes the sentence too long!] is inhibited by the advancement in science. Thus, making its laws no longer applicable to human life. [*Thus, its laws are no longer applicable...]

It may be argued that the statement is true to a certain extent. The advancement of science has made it possible for us to treat and cure various fatal diseases. This can be views viewed as us ‘cheating’ death, thus natural selection cannot take place. Furthermore, the advancement in IVF technology has meant that it is now possible for couples, who would normally not be able to, have children. [*now possible for couples to have children, where previously they would not be able to.] We can infer from this that natural selection is not taking place and therefore no longer apply to humans. I'd be wary of saying 'we can infer'... maybe use a less certain phrase like "This suggests".

However, It may also be argued that there are still medical conditions that cannot be treated and have a low survival rate such as panceratic pancreatic cancer. This could mean that the very few survivals survivors are undergoing the process of natural selection and are more fit to survive. Furthermore, it may be assumed that in less economically developed countries the access to good medical care is scarce. With lack of medical care and resources individuals who are more fit and able to adapt to these conditions are more likely to survive and reproduce. Alleles such as resistance to certain diseases may be in favour to some individuals leading to ensured survival. This last sentence is worded a bit strangely.

In conclusion, there are a number of factors that affect natural selection including access to adequate resources and the resistance to various diseases. In addition, it may be thought that due to the advancement in medicine and the vast improvement in the quality of life, natural selection no longer apply applies.

People are getting older and with the advancement of medicine they are becoming more expensive to treat. Old people should not be treated in the NHS.

Explain the argument behind this statement. What assumptions does it make? Argue to the contrary that older patients are entitled to be treated on the NHS.

Can someone please mark and give a score!