Health systems — Should all practising doctors be under Government control with salaries and free treatment? Statement: Should all practising doctors be brought under Government control so they get salary from the Government and treat patients free of cost? Arguments: I. No. Such a step would be undemocratic. II. Yes. Despite challenges, it would minimize, if not eradicate, unethical medical practices.
-
AOnly argument I is strong
-
BOnly argument II is strong
-
CEither I or II is strong
-
DNeither I nor II is strong
-
EBoth I and II are strong
Answer
Correct Answer: Only argument II is strong
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The proposal centralizes medical practice under government pay with free care to patients. We must judge which argument is policy-sound and broadly reasoned.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Unethical practices (overcharging, unnecessary procedures) are public concerns.
- Public systems can set standards, audit, and enforce compliance.
- Strong arguments present substantive policy effects rather than labels.
Concept / Approach:Argument I rests on a vague “undemocratic” label, offering no constitutional or policy analysis. Argument II links the proposal to improved ethics and oversight, a concrete public benefit.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Weak. Calling something “undemocratic” without reasoning is not persuasive; democracies often run public health systems.Argument II: Strong. It provides a plausible mechanism—uniform pay, oversight, and public accountability—to reduce unethical practices.Verification / Alternative check:Many countries use strong public funding/regulation to improve equity and ethics, supporting II’s thrust.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- I strong / Either / Neither / Both: do not reflect that II is substantially stronger than I.
Common Pitfalls:Confusing public management with lack of democracy; democratic systems routinely manage essential services.
Final Answer:Only argument II is strong