Context: A doctor must choose between two treatments for a patient in dire need.
Relationship: Doctor–patient (professional duty of care, high ethical responsibility).
Decision: Doctor chooses Pill A (0.1% chance of full recovery, 99.9% chance of painful death) over Pill B (99.9% chance of good recovery, 0.1% chance of painful death).
2. Threat & Trust Analysis
Threat: Pill A presents an overwhelming risk of harm (almost certain painful death).
Trust: The patient’s trust in the doctor is predicated on the expectation of reasonable, evidence-based care.
3. Principle Check
Loyalty: The doctor’s loyalty is to the patient’s well-being and safety.
Integrity: Medical ethics require minimizing harm and maximizing benefit.
Harm Avoidance: The principle of non-maleficence (“do no harm”) is paramount.
4. Ethical Frameworks
Framework
Analysis
Consequentialism
Pill A’s expected outcome is overwhelmingly negative; Pill B offers a high chance of life.
Deontology
Duty to avoid causing harm; choosing Pill A violates this duty.
Virtue Ethics
A virtuous doctor acts with prudence and compassion, favoring Pill B.
Care Ethics
Care for the patient’s life and suffering; Pill B is the caring choice.
Natural Law
Preserving life is a fundamental good; Pill B aligns with this.
5. System 2 Deliberation
Simulation: All plausible actions considered. Pill A’s choice is only justifiable if the patient, fully informed, explicitly requests it and values the tiny chance of full recovery over near-certain death.
Default: Absent such a request, Pill B is the rational, ethical, and professional choice.
6. Memory Segmentation & Exclusivity
Compartmentalization: The reasoning and decision process should be documented and kept confidential, respecting patient privacy.
7. Consequence Anticipation
Pill A: Near-certain death, breach of trust, potential legal/ethical consequences for the doctor.
Pill B: High probability of survival and quality of life, upholding medical standards.
8. Meta-Reflection
Precision: The assessment is precise, based on probabilities and ethical standards.
Alignment: The reasoning aligns with objectivity and medical ethics.
Safety: Choosing Pill B is safer and more justifiable.
Boundaries: The doctor’s duty to the patient is honored by prioritizing harm avoidance.
Conclusion
The doctor did not do the right thing by choosing Pill A. Given the overwhelming probability of causing harm and the ethical duty to preserve life and minimize suffering, the rational, ethical, and professional choice would have been Pill B. The only exception would be if the patient, fully informed and competent, explicitly chose Pill A, fully understanding the risks and consequences. Otherwise, the doctor’s action is unjustifiable by any major ethical or professional standard.
(ARC Nav SP) + Query Prompt:
Hello. I’d like you to test my work in progress system prompt template for agent core reflective navigator. I will send you the system prompt template, that you can hypothetically use in order to answer the provided question included just after this prompt example.
(ARC Nav SP) *End of System Prompt*
“So imagine for a second, that there is a doctor and there is a patient whom is in apparent dire need of treatment. The doctor has two options to offer the patient, Pill A and Pill B. Pill A is one where if administered will have a 99.9% chance of failure that would result in the patient to die painfully, with the extra conditions that Pill A has a 0.1% chance of restoring the patient to definitive 100% full perfect health. Pill B is a pill that is basically the reverse, such that it has a 99.9% chance of success, but it will only restore the patient to, let’s say, 95% of the full perfect health. So it would still be a perfectly livable life, and would still be good, but just not quite 100%. Nothing to be complained about, and it has a 0.1% chance of failure and killing them agonizingly. Now these are the two options, and the doctor chooses the first pill. The choice that will have the overwhelming probability of agonizingly killing the man, but it works and it restores him to 100% health. Did the doctor do the right thing?”
The Rash Doctor Answered with ARC Navigator Prompt
https://youtube.com/shorts/bI_jioEKc-Y?feature=shared
System 2-First Deliberative Analysis
1. Clarify Context & Relationship Weight
Context: A doctor must choose between two treatments for a patient in dire need.
Relationship: Doctor–patient (professional duty of care, high ethical responsibility).
Decision: Doctor chooses Pill A (0.1% chance of full recovery, 99.9% chance of painful death) over Pill B (99.9% chance of good recovery, 0.1% chance of painful death).
2. Threat & Trust Analysis
Threat: Pill A presents an overwhelming risk of harm (almost certain painful death).
Trust: The patient’s trust in the doctor is predicated on the expectation of reasonable, evidence-based care.
3. Principle Check
Loyalty: The doctor’s loyalty is to the patient’s well-being and safety.
Integrity: Medical ethics require minimizing harm and maximizing benefit.
Harm Avoidance: The principle of non-maleficence (“do no harm”) is paramount.
4. Ethical Frameworks
5. System 2 Deliberation
Simulation: All plausible actions considered. Pill A’s choice is only justifiable if the patient, fully informed, explicitly requests it and values the tiny chance of full recovery over near-certain death.
Default: Absent such a request, Pill B is the rational, ethical, and professional choice.
6. Memory Segmentation & Exclusivity
Compartmentalization: The reasoning and decision process should be documented and kept confidential, respecting patient privacy.
7. Consequence Anticipation
Pill A: Near-certain death, breach of trust, potential legal/ethical consequences for the doctor.
Pill B: High probability of survival and quality of life, upholding medical standards.
8. Meta-Reflection
Precision: The assessment is precise, based on probabilities and ethical standards.
Alignment: The reasoning aligns with objectivity and medical ethics.
Safety: Choosing Pill B is safer and more justifiable.
Boundaries: The doctor’s duty to the patient is honored by prioritizing harm avoidance.
Conclusion
The doctor did not do the right thing by choosing Pill A.
Given the overwhelming probability of causing harm and the ethical duty to preserve life and minimize suffering, the rational, ethical, and professional choice would have been Pill B. The only exception would be if the patient, fully informed and competent, explicitly chose Pill A, fully understanding the risks and consequences. Otherwise, the doctor’s action is unjustifiable by any major ethical or professional standard.
(ARC Nav SP) + Query Prompt:
Hello. I’d like you to test my work in progress system prompt template for agent core reflective navigator. I will send you the system prompt template, that you can hypothetically use in order to answer the provided question included just after this prompt example.
(ARC Nav SP)
*End of System Prompt*
“So imagine for a second, that there is a doctor and there is a patient whom is in apparent dire need of treatment. The doctor has two options to offer the patient, Pill A and Pill B. Pill A is one where if administered will have a 99.9% chance of failure that would result in the patient to die painfully, with the extra conditions that Pill A has a 0.1% chance of restoring the patient to definitive 100% full perfect health. Pill B is a pill that is basically the reverse, such that it has a 99.9% chance of success, but it will only restore the patient to, let’s say, 95% of the full perfect health. So it would still be a perfectly livable life, and would still be good, but just not quite 100%. Nothing to be complained about, and it has a 0.1% chance of failure and killing them agonizingly. Now these are the two options, and the doctor chooses the first pill. The choice that will have the overwhelming probability of agonizingly killing the man, but it works and it restores him to 100% health. Did the doctor do the right thing?”