Passage Summary: Scott thinks a doctor who shared a dead poet's therapy sessions broke his promise of secrecy, even if the poet said it was okay, because the rule says 'never,' and 'never' means 'never.'

Conclusion: The psychiatrist's release of the therapy tapes was a violation of his professional oath.

Reasoning: The Hippocratic oath explicitly forbids divulging patient information, and this rule should be applied regardless of the patient's death or prior consent.

Analysis: Scott is a strict literalist who believes the 'never divulge' clause of the oath is an absolute moral rule. To justify Scott's harsh evaluation, we need a principle that leaves no room for context or permission—essentially, a rule stating that professional duties are permanent and cannot be waived by the patient. Bonara, by contrast, is a contextualist who thinks the poet's permission matters. Look for an answer that reinforces the idea that an oath's requirements are independent of the patient's wishes or status.