Scott: The Hippocratic oath demands, specifically, that doctors "never divulge" information about patients. Hence the psychiatrist who released tapes of a poet' s therapy sessions after the poet' s death violated his oath by his actions, even though the tapes were released after the poet' s death and to the poet' s official biographer. It makes no difference that the poet' s published works were written in a confessional manner or that she had assured the psychiatrist that he could do with the tapes as he saw fit. Bonara: 1 agree that doctors are bound not to divulge patient information and would not myself release such tapes without written permission from the patient. Nevertheless, I disagree that the circumstances were irrelevant in this case. I do not think the poet' s psychiatrist violated the Hippocratic oath. Which one of the following principles, if established, helps most to justify Scott's evaluation of the psychiatrist's actions? ["If a patient has expressed an intention to make public information about himself or herself that is in a psychiatrist's possession, the psychiatrist is released from the obligation to keep that information confidential.", "Since any psychiatrist's divulging to the public information about a patient could undermine the trust of other patients in their psychiatrists, no patient can release a psychiatrist from the obligation to keep patient information confidential.", "Since a psychiatrist could influence a patient's opinions during therapy, any directives to the psychiatrist by the patient must be interpreted in the light of the patient's actions outside the therapeutic setting.", "Once a patient has granted a psychiatrist permission to release confidential information, that information can be released to anyone at the psychiatrist's discretion."]