BMAT Section 3 Essay Marking 2018 entry

By all means there isn't a rigid structure to follow for the BMAT but you can still apply it here. They still want you to provide arguments for the statement (i.e. when a doctor shot distort the truth) and against (when they shouldn't). If you want to introduce different points make it clear which side of the argument is supports and you can incorporate it in your essay.

Wouldn't you follow the 'PEE' structure i.e. One Point, evidence & explanation rather than having a paragraph filled with a list of points?

This statement states that doctors should never lie and must act with integrity. The statement also suggests that this is regardless of any other contentions a doctor may have including his personal interest or possible impacts of the truth on the patient. Great! You’ve included personal interests and possible impacts which are both developed upon in further paragraphs. Makes it flow better.



Considering the unique position of power doctors are in and the importance of the rapport between them and patients, it appears that to be a good doctor, one must never lie. Doctors are in a unique position of power. No need to repeat, remember the space you have to write on in is very small. Patients who may have never known them entrust doctors with their biggest worries and more often than not accept their advice without question. Should doctors' clinical judgement be affected for instance, due to sponsorships by pharmaceutical firms which are common in the United States, it would be very dangerous. Doctors should set all personal bias aside and only present patients with facts, allowing them to make informed decisions, to practice their autonomy. Furthermore, lies will damage patient-doctor relationships when they are inevitably exposed eventually. No need for ‘eventually’ as inevitably is sufficient. Studies have repeatedly shown strong causation between positive patient-doctor relationship and adherence to treatment. This means that lies would inadvertently damage patients' clinical outcomes which should be the concern of good doctors. Strong point. Perhaps find a way to expand on it? Example: Not only will it damage relationships with that doctor but also cause society to doubt the profession as a whole thus dramatically impacting health.



Though rare, there are extenuating circumstances where doctors may be allowed to or even obliged to lie. One such case would be when family members requests request* for the patient's information against the explicit wishes of the patients. Explain. As a doctor’s responsibility to confidentiality is greater than truthfulness in this scenario. In this case, the doctor may deliberately withhold information or even lie. Another applicable scenario would be when there is ambiguity over the facts. For a patient with no clear prognosis, a doctor may be well within his rights to provide a more positive prognosis than that of his actual opinion. Granted, the prognosis should be reasonably plausible. In fact, it may even have a placebo effect and positively affect the patient.

Good essay, I’d say practice including a variety of punctuation. Content is, on the whole, good.

Wouldn't you follow the 'PEE' structure i.e. One Point, evidence & explanation rather than having a paragraph filled with a list of points?

There is no such thing as dangerous speech; it is up to people to choose how they react.

Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue to the contrary that there can be instances of dangerous speech. To what extent should a society put limitations on speech or text that it considers threatening?

This statement implies that speech in itself is not 'dangerous' in that it doesn't cause significant harm. It seems to support the concept of freedom of speech by saying that the people choose how they react and as such, is not the speaker's fault. Good opening that points out the implicit assumption of the question while qualifying dangerous speech to be speech that causes significant harm i.e minor harm is fine. A speech consists of words being uttered by an individual so it can't be physically harmful in any way. It is usually just ideas put across and has no direct implications in the real world. It is an opinion. One person's perspective. How can expressing your opinion be harmful? In fact, it would be dangerous if free speech was abolished as it would take our inherent right to liberty and cause us, as a society, to be less aware of truly malicious behaviour like racism and sexism. The only seems unnecessarily absolute real danger of a speech is when the audience has a strong reaction to it and since interpretation is largely subjective (it is apparent as different people will undoubtedly have different reactions), people could adopt positive attitudes and eliminate the danger. It is not the words, but the people that are dangerous. Perhaps if your conclusion is going to be more balanced, your phrasing for the "For" point could be less absolute. Perhaps you could start your argument by linking Dangerous speech and Free speech as the qn is referring to dangerous speech. Going on on free speech might risk going off tangent.

On the contrary, one may argue that although interpretation is subjective, it is predictable. In a tolerant society, people will always be against homophobia. If one knows the reaction will be negative, is it really right to say it anyway? By still speaking, speakers are causing the danger. The idea of making a conscious decision is explored here while is good! Furthermore, we can't 'choose' our reactions. Our opinions are highly influenced by that of others; 90% of people adopt the same religious beliefs as their parents. The idea of how ideas are contagious could be explored to explain why hate speech is dangerous, spread racism etc. They're contagious. Any belief that discriminates against people will inevitably cause a negative reaction. Additionally, a speech that is demeaning to a group can be labelled as dangerous as it is verbal assault. This can impact self-esteem and cause long-lasting psychological harm. This is dangerous. A speech can even danger the speaker. President John F. Kennedy's death can be purely attributed to him giving a speech. The idea that a speech can be dangerous not just to society or the recipients is brought out. This is an interesting point but I feel that it may not be expounded sufficiently. The example may not be ideal either. Perhaps, people speaking out against regimes could have been a stronger support.

Ultimately, speeches will always be dangerous as they can reach a substantial amount of people and there is power in numbers. Slander a company and it can go bankrupt tomorrow with all it's employees financially harmed. Speak negatively about another country and a war could arise. But this power can also be used for good; rebellions against a dictatorship can arise or inequality can be addressed as Martin Luther King did. Only speeches that are clearly conducted to offend people with no positive aim in mind should be banned. This way, we can promote healthy discussions, equality, and justice and as a result, live in a better tomorrow.

Hey if someone could take a look at this practice question I did I would be so grateful! I found this question quite hard so any feedback or further ideas would be really valuable!

2016 Q2: Science is not a follower of fashion nor of other social or cultural trends.

Explain what you think the statement means. Argue to the contrary. To what extent do you agree with the statement?

The statement explores how temporary and variable perceptions and interests within society influence the progress of science, implying that science develops independently of trends that many deem arbitrary. Clearly addressing the first part of the question. Not sure what you meant regarding Science being deem arbitrary.

However, it can often be observed that progresses in science are linked to interests and values at the time. In today’s world, society and the media place great importance on appearance – as a result of this, cosmetic research teams often receive more funding. For example, each year over £1 billion goes into treatments for baldness and research into a cure - much more than for Malaria or HIV/AIDS. If society wants to obtain certain types of science-based medical applications, this will influence the types of scientific research that it supports with its resources. Good point regarding cosmetic surgery. Maybe even extrapolate it to the concept of how science research requires resources and allocation of resources are affected by social/ cultural factor.

Furthermore, historically science has been used as a means of control by powerful groups to manipulate populations into believing their social ideals. A notable example of this would be Hitler, who used scientific “research” to support his claims that certain minorities were biologically inferior. Not sure how it is exactly linked to the question. Better linkage could have been made.

On the other hand, there have been occasions where science has completely gone against fashionable trends and cultural beliefs – for example Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution by natural selection at a time when religion dominated society, going against prevalent and unchallenged views. Additionally Alfred Wegener‘s revolutionary concept of continental drift went against the accepted shrinking Earth theory of the time period, once more showing how science pioneered through popular belief. I think the point could be that the science by itself is objective and will not change with cultural beliefs. Rather, robust science can challenge the cultural beliefs and change it for eg. People's understanding of homosexuality improved with science. In the past, it was considered as a mental illness, now, there is generally better acceptance.

I agree partially with the statement, as in principle science is not a follower of fashion nor of other social or cultural trends, however in a world where researchers are competing against each other for funding, it is inevitable that projects influenced by popular opinions of the time will receive more attention and resources – causing science to appear to follow fashionable trends and ideals.

Hey would really appreciate if somebody could have a look at my essay.

Life has a natural end, and doctors and others caring for a patient need to recognise that the point may come in the progression of a patient's condition where death is drawing near. Explain what you think this statement means and why it is of relevance to good medical practice. What are the risks and consequences of doctors and others caring for patients not recognising the point where death is drawing near? Give a reasoned answer.

The statement sugget that doctors need to accept that in certain circumstances they will be unable so save the lives of their patient, as death is inevitable. This statement is relative to good medical practise as it implies that if further treatement appears to be futile, then a doctor should consider terminating the course of treatement. This could comply with the GMC's guidelines which preach 'non-maleficence' as further treatement could cause unnecessart distress and pain to a patient, and this should be avoided. Quite a bit of spelling errors, I would assume it was made during the transcription. Good opening statement that clearly defines the statement.

Furthermore, if others caring for the patient (eg. their family) fail to recognise the point where death is near, this oculd result in them themselves experiencing false hope, and consequentially more pain at the death of their loved one. It could also lead them to encouraging further treatement for their loved one, who could in turn feel pressured into accepting it, while it may be against their will- as this potentially compromises patient autonomy, it's essential that doctors and those caring for a patient recognise when death is near. This is up to debate I guess, but if patient autonomy compromised if he took into consideration his family's opinions? I think an alternate point regarding the value of palliative care could be brought up.

Finally it could be argued that if a doctor is able to recognise the point at which death is near, they could infrm the patient that further treatement is futile and thus stop the treatement. THis would save some unds which could then be used to treat others who have a chance of survival., hence this benefits others.

To concludeit's very singificant that a doctor is able to recognise when death is near as it allows them to inform the patient, and with consent, withdraw treatement, preventing pain to a patient and allowing them to die with dignity.
Many Thanks!!

@Bossmanjacks @graphicsturtle Mind taking a look at my essay?

Genes control our lives.

Explain what this statement means. Advance an argument in support of and in opposition to the statement. How can we identify the role that genes play in our lives?


With the advent of our understanding of genetics in the recent decades, due to projects like the Human Genome Project, scientists have found that our genetics play a huge role in our lives. This has also led to the revival of the long-time debate on whether nature or nurture is more important. Saying that genes play a huge role in our lives is not really explaining the statement, just restating it. Could make clearer by giving examples of the role they play.

Considering the huge impact genetics have on our lives, it is easy to see why some may believe that it is the most important factor in influencing our lives. The most striking example could be that our gender is determined by our genes.Good point but here you could just quickly link back to the original statement by saying something about how gender influences a person's life. Beyond that, vigorous studies have proven that many illnesses are affected by our genetic make-up. Some may be more susceptible to mental illnesses due to their genetic predisposition. It is extremely common that a person with mental illness has a close biological relative with mental illnesses even after accounting for the prevalence of mental illnesses. Whether you are myopic is also affected by genetic make-up. Great point, well developed. Besides, our looks are affected by our genetics, with most people bearing similarities to their parents. Once again could expand very briefly on how looks influence your life. It is clear that genetics play a role in all facets of our lives.

However, genetics is not absolute and may play a smaller role than we believe. In the context of diseases, most are affected by factors beyond genetics. Lifestyle choices like smoking or exercise would likely be more important in determining if you are affected by lung cancer or obesity-related diseases respectively than your genetics. Cosmetics or cosmetic surgery could change your looks. Other things affected by genetics are not absolute either. intelligence, for instance, does not necessitate success.Good paragraph, but would add a sentence or so to once more link back to statement - for example you could instead have said "Physical characteristics such as hair colour are originally determined by genetic make up, however you can easily change your hair colour by dying it. In the original statement 'control' implies that genes give us no alternative- that everything is set in stone- however this ability to alter certain features of ourselves shows that genes do not control every aspect of our life"

Nevertheless, genes still play a role in our lives and we should capitalize on the knowledge of genetics gained to improve our lives. Genetic testing is now more accessible and can alert us of the the illnesses we are more susceptible to. Angelina Jolie notably surgically removed her breasts with the knowledge that she is predisposed to breast cancer. Good, addressing the final part of the question. While we may not need to go to such extremes, knowing what we are more prone to can and should motivate us to change our lifestyle.

@Bossmanjacks @graphicsturtle Mind taking a look at my essay?

Genes control our lives.

Explain what this statement means. Advance an argument in support of and in opposition to the statement. How can we identify the role that genes play in our lives?


With the advent of our understanding of genetics in the recent decades, due to projects like the Human Genome Project, scientists have found that our genetics play a huge role in our lives. This has also led to the revival of the long-time debate on whether nature or nurture is more important. Agree with the above statement, mention more explicitly what the statement means and how genes actually control our lives, though you have touched the prompt- how we can identify genes.

Considering the huge impact genetics have on our lives, it is easy to see why some may believe that it is the most important factor in influencing our lives. The most striking example could be that our gender is determined by our genes. Beyond that, vigorous studies have proven that many illnesses are affected by our genetic make-up. Some may be more susceptible to mental illnesses due to their genetic predisposition. It is extremely common that a person with mental illness has a close biological relative with mental illnesses even after accounting for the prevalence of mental illnesses. Whether you are myopic is also affected by genetic make-up. Besides, our looks are affected by our genetics, with most people bearing similarities to their parents. It is clear that genetics play a role in all facets of our lives.

However, genetics is not absolute and may play a smaller role than we believe. In the context of diseases, most are affected by factors beyond genetics. Lifestyle choices like smoking or exercise would likely be more important in determining if you are affected by lung cancer or obesity-related diseases respectively than your genetics. Cosmetics or cosmetic surgery could change your looks. Other things affected by genetics are not absolute either. intelligence, for instance, does not necessitate success. Perhaps mention socio-environmental factors too You have made some very good points here.

Nevertheless, genes still play a role in our lives and we should capitalize on the knowledge of genetics gained to improve our lives. Genetic testing is now more accessible and can alert us of the the illnesses we are more susceptible to. Angelina Jolie notably surgically removed her breasts with the knowledge that she is predisposed to breast cancer. While we may not need to go to such extremes, knowing what we are more prone to can and should motivate us to change our lifestyle.

Sorry, I haven't been very active lately but I should hopefully be more available for these last few days! Anyone care to read my essay?

People who smoke should not be treated by a publicly funded health service.
Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue to the contrary. To what extent, if any, does this statement justify a change in public attitude to smoking?

Smoking is a dangerous act that causes a myriad of life-threatening diseases and is the leading cause of death, costing the NHS millions every year. This statement implies that since smoking is a form of self-infliction, why should the consequences be treated by an already underfunded healthcare service (NHS)?

One point for this argument is that the money used to treat smoking-related conditions can otherwise be used to help those whose conditions aren't a fault of their own, like cystic fibrosis. How could we tell innocent, terminally ill patients that they can't be treated because funds are being allocated to people who ruined their health with a destructive habit? Additionally, healthcare is expensive. Making smokers pay for their treatment may finally provide a great enough incentive for smokers to quit, reducing the number of smoke-related diseases. This would fulfil the primary purpose of healthcare. I would also mention that other self-inflicted conditions are treated by the NHS, e.g. suicide attempts/self harm


On the other hand, can we definitively pin the fault of smoking on the smoker? The majority of smokers start in their teenage years, when they are unable to make properly informed decisions and succumb to a powerful force known as peer pressure. When they develop an addiction, as per the definition, they no longer have control over their habit. Therefore, for the majority of smokers, it's their environment that caused them to smoke, which is not much different to being prone to cancer; a condition that no-one would argue is self-inflicting. Genetics can also play a role. Some smokers simply have addictive personality disorders which prevent them from being able to quit. Furthermore, smokers are already severely economically disadvantaged due to high taxation on cigarettes, higher life insurance etc... There is little evidence that this has efficiently reduced smoking, so expenses don't seem to have a huge affect on whether people smoke or not. Also, smokers pay taxes and are therefore entitled to a publicly funded service that they partially paid for. In fact, cigarette tax already covers the healthcare costs of smokers so don't they have a right to treatment just as anybody else? Great paragraph - might add on to the last sentence by stating about how denying smokers free treatment would be against the core principles of the NHS (The NHS provides a comprehensive service available to all).


In conclusion, attitudes towards smoking should be changed although it is unethical to deprive smokers of all healthcare service (even ones that weren't attributed to smoking). The healthcare costs are already covered by the increased tax so it doesn't disadvantage anyone else for them to be treated. Therefore the only reason not to treat smokers would be to encourage quitting. Since smoking seems to stem from social pressures, a more effective method would be to tackle this by raising more awareness in schools and regulate actors who smoke in movies, essentially causing highly impressionable individuals to associate smoking with higher status, thus promoting it.

Hey guys!
I've written essays but haven't had feedback on a single one . I would be immensely grateful if someone could just have a brief look over one of my essays. I've written one below.

'Life has a natural end, and doctors and others caring for a patient need to recognise that the point may come in the progression of a patient's condition where death is drawing near'

Explain what you think this statement means and why is it of relevance to good medical practise.
What are the risks and consequences of doctors and others caring for patients not recognising the point where death is drawing near? Give a reasoned answer.

The statement suggests that doctors and carers of the patient should come to terms with the fact that an individual’s death is inevitable and that it is of utmost importance that they allow death to take its natural course in the exacerbation of the patient’s condition. Acknowledging this fact will enable both doctors and carers to appreciate that, for example, artificially prolonging one’s life may be at the expense of the individual’s quality of life. A collective awareness for this fact will allow doctors and carers to be more understanding of each other’s suggestions and actions concerning the patient. Great introduction.

Failure to anticipate that the escalation of a patient’s condition may put the patient at the verge of death could cause social problems and inflict sudden emotional distress on the carers of the patient when the patient eventually dies. For example, the relatives of the patient may not have prepared adequately, financially, for life after the patient’s death and so upon hearing the news, they may have to frantically put plans into place. Well developed point Thus recognising this fact will provide a smooth transition for all those involved. I would suggest having at least one more reason/example here to give your argument more weight or just rewording to more clearly separate emotional distress and financial situation into two distinct points, as you've sort of blended them together - you could do this simply by saying 'furthermore' instead of 'for example'.

It is critically important that doctors recognise that the deterioration of the patient’s condition may be a sign that the death of the patient is imminent, as it will allow doctors to consider thoroughly the next course of action with regards to the patient’s treatment. Without this understanding, doctors may suggest forms of treatment to the patients and carers which may actually cause more harm than good rather than providing treatment which would ease the patient’s pain as the patient’s life draws to an end. For example, in this case of a terminally ill cancer patient it may perhaps be better to provide pain killers rather than persisting with chemotherapy. Excellent paragraph - could use a real life example of this to demonstrate your point, e.g. Charlie Gard.

Ultimately, recognition of the fact that death is a probable outcome when a patient’s conditions worsens, will not only allow doctors and carers of the patient to better prepare for the patient’s departure but also ease the discomfort of the patient and thus maximise the quality of their life as they approach death. Succinct and effective conclusion.

1 You must be honest and open and act with integrity
The statement describes the qualities required in a good doctor-patient relationship; one that complies with the GMC’s by informing the whole truth rather than concealing and withholding information. Being truthful as a wholesome is essential in this profession as doctors have the obligation, to be honest, and act with integrity. However, in complex circumstances, these duties can be surpassed.

Acting with integrity is what is expected of a doctor as patient’s treatment and decisions are formulated on the basis of the information given by the doctor. Hence, it is imperative that this element is embedded within their profession as its essential for the patient’s well-being. A very vague and basic example would be informing a patient that after a DNA screening they have a low probability of developing cancer due to a gene present. Although, the probability is low and the doctor may in his opinion believe it’s insignificant, it’s in their duty to inform the recipient because they have a right to know about their health. Being a doctor has the pivotal role of retrieving information and also sharing it confidentially with patient nonetheless it build a strong doctor-patient relationship with the patient which therefore allows doctors to be perceived as candid and trustworthy. Nonetheless, doctors have moral duty to provide all information to the patients. The placebo effect also gears in place as treatments are more likely to work if they have faith with their doctor.

However, there are some externalities which can be justified when a doctor wishes on his behalf not to enclose all information. For example, delivering bad news such a breaking it to relatives that a loved one has passed away by only saying surgery complications instead of giving a detailed description would be justified. But in cases such as prescribing drugs or a patient undergoing treatment not explaining side effects and symptoms would be unethical and dishonest as in this environment it’s the patient’s well-being and health on the line.
Although the transfer of information should be ideally bidirectional it may not always be the case in certain complex scenarios. But on the basis that a doctor has signed the Hippocratic Oath which states do the least harm to a person. As long as the information is disclosed it justifiable by the Hippocratic Oath would not distil the means of trust between a doctor and his patients.