Your response must be at least 5paragraphs.

Case 7-2 regards lying to a patient in order to help her get offof sleeping pills that she is addicted to. She believes wronglythat she cannot sleep without the pills and presumably the doctorcannot convince her otherwise. So he arranges with the Pharmacistto have her sleeping pills replaced slowly with placebos withouther knowledge. Mrs. Abrahams then does benefit from the deceptionbecause she is able to sleep with the placebo by the time thetitration is finished. This is a conflict between medicalpaternalism and truth-telling. Legally he is in the wrong butethically he is doing something that really does benefit thepatient. The Pharmacist is also in the wrong for charging the womanfor placebo and mislabeling the prescription. There are violationsof law all over this case. Yet, it is benefiting the patientbecause of the unique circumstances of the patient. Do you thinkthe doctor and the Pharmacist are doing the right thing or thewrong thing? If you believe they are doing the wrong thing whatshould they do instead? If it is the right thing, how do youjustify violating the law? Our authors distinguish between outrightlying and failing to tell the whole truth. That certainly is avalid distinction but is this a case of not telling the whole truthor is it a case of outright lying? How do you think Mrs. Abrahamwould feel if she found out? Do you think she would be thankful orwould she sue? What moral theories or principles would you appealto?