Correct Answer: whether assisted dying should extend to mental illness alone
Passage Reference: widen medical assistance in dying to people whose sole diagnosis is a mental illness
Why this is correct: The columnist discusses whether Parliament should widen medical assistance in dying to people whose sole diagnosis is a mental illness.
Tips: For a “mainly about” question, read the first two sentences of the column. Every speaker after that answers the same question.
Why the other options are wrong:
- how hospitals choose and train their chaplains: Barclay is a hospital chaplain, but how chaplains are chosen or trained is never discussed.
- why opinion polls on health care are unreliable: The column notes that public opinion is split, but it never says polls are unreliable.
- whether palliative care should move out of hospitals: Palliative care is mentioned as something that must be offered, not as something to move elsewhere.
Correct Answer: Jem Barclay
Passage Reference: safeguards written on paper cannot repair a system that already rations the very care
Why this is correct: Jem Barclay argues that safeguards written on paper cannot repair a system that already rations care. That is the very care that could have made living bearable.
Tips: Several speakers mention safeguards or written proof. Read what each one expects them to achieve, and find who thinks they fall short.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Fay Calder: Fay Calder relies on safeguards such as capacity checks and waiting periods, so she does not doubt them.
- Kamala Vance: Kamala Vance wants written proof that care was offered, which treats written safeguards as useful, not as a poor substitute for care.
- Bastian Girard: Bastian Girard doubts that doctors can predict whether an illness will improve. That is a clinical doubt, not a doubt about written safeguards.
Correct Answer: people who see lifelong exclusion as unfair to psychiatric patients
Passage Reference: leaving psychiatric patients out forever looks like unequal compassion
Why this is correct: Calder says that leaving psychiatric patients out forever looks like unequal compassion. So people who see lifelong exclusion as unfair would support her.
Tips: Find Calder’s reason in her lines. Pick the choice that agrees with that reason.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a survey of chaplains who oppose the change: Chaplains who oppose the change would stand with Barclay against widening, not with Calder.
- reports of long waits for psychiatric treatment: Long waits for care back Barclay’s warning about neglect, not Calder’s case for expansion.
- a finding that families rarely back such requests: Families that oppose requests would weaken the case for expansion, so this finding does not help Calder.
Correct Answer: any wider eligibility would start several years later
Passage Reference: a start date several years away
Why this is correct: One of Vance’s conditions is a start date several years away, so any wider eligibility would begin only years later.
Tips: Vance lists four conditions in one long sentence. Look at the part about timing and ask when any change would begin.
Why the other options are wrong:
- eligibility would widen as soon as the bill passes: Vance rejects a quick opening and wants a start date years away, so an immediate change fails her condition.
- one specialist would be enough to approve a request: Vance requires two independent assessments, not one specialist.
- approval records would be kept private: Vance wants public reports showing who is approved, the opposite of private records.
Correct Answer: against it for now, but not forever
Passage Reference: I would keep the door closed, though not locked
Why this is correct: The writer says Parliament should not yet widen eligibility, but a permanent ban would be a mistake. The column ends by keeping the door “closed, though not locked”.
Tips: For a position question, read the first two sentences and the last sentence together. Look at the word “yet” and the picture of a door.
Why the other options are wrong:
- in favour, as long as safeguards are written: The columnist’s answer for now is no, even with safeguards, until the care exists.
- firmly against it under any future law: The first paragraph calls a permanent ban a mistake, so the opposition is not forever.
- undecided, leaving the choice to doctors: The last paragraph states a clear position, and the next step goes to Parliament, not to doctors.
Correct Answer: capacity tests and waiting periods
Passage Reference: Her safeguards include tests of decision-making capacity, set waiting periods and the exclusion of anyone in an acute crisis.
Why this is correct: Calder’s safeguards include tests of decision-making capacity, set waiting periods and the exclusion of anyone in an acute crisis.
Tips: The comment names Calder, so go back to the sentence that starts “Her safeguards include”. The right choice names two of the items on that list.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a vote by the patient’s family: Families are never given a vote in Calder’s safeguards.
- approval from a court judge: Courts are not part of Calder’s list. She relies on specialists’ assessment.
- a second opinion from a chaplain: The chaplain in the column is Barclay, and Calder never asks for a chaplain’s opinion.
Correct Answer: cannot reliably predict who will improve
Passage Reference: doctors still cannot reliably predict whether a particular mental illness will improve
Why this is correct: Girard says doctors still cannot reliably predict whether a particular mental illness will improve.
Tips: The comment calls him “the psychiatrist”, so find Girard’s lines at the end of the third paragraph. Match his point about doctors in other words.
Why the other options are wrong:
- rarely agree on a diagnosis: Girard’s doubt is about predicting improvement, not about agreeing on a diagnosis.
- see too many patients each day: Doctors’ workloads are never mentioned by Girard.
- should stay out of committee hearings: Girard gives evidence on the question himself, and nobody says doctors should stay out of hearings.
Correct Answer: accessible care was offered first
Passage Reference: written proof that accessible psychiatric and palliative care was offered
Why this is correct: Vance wants written proof that accessible psychiatric and palliative care was offered.
Tips: Look for the words “written proof” in Vance’s lines. Read what the proof must show.
Why the other options are wrong:
- the family agreed in writing: Vance’s written proof is about care being offered, not about the family’s agreement.
- the patient had tried every drug: Vance never asks for proof that every drug was tried.
- a lawyer had read the request: Lawyers reading requests are not among Vance’s conditions.
Correct Answer: who is approved and on what grounds
Passage Reference: public reports showing who is approved and on what grounds
Why this is correct: Vance asks for public reports showing who is approved and on what grounds.
Tips: Vance’s list ends with public reports. Read to the very end of that sentence to see what the reports would show.
Why the other options are wrong:
- how much each case costs: Costs are never part of the reports Vance wants.
- which hospitals refuse requests: Vance wants reports on who is approved and on what grounds, not on hospitals that refuse.
- the wait for a first appointment: Waiting times come up in Barclay’s warning, not in Vance’s reports.
Correct Answer: sat on a hospital ethics committee
Passage Reference: Years ago I sat on a hospital ethics committee
Why this is correct: Look at the first paragraph. The writer says that years ago the writer sat on a hospital ethics committee.
Tips: The comment says “you once”, so look for the writer’s own past in the first paragraph. Notice the words “Years ago”.
Why the other options are wrong:
- worked as a palliative care nurse: The palliative care worker in the column is Calder, a physician, not the columnist.
- advised a disability rights network: Advising a disability rights network is Barclay’s role, not the columnist’s.
- taught health law at a university: Teaching health law is Vance’s work, not the columnist’s.
