ENTRANCE EXAMINATlON 2011
QUESTION PAPER BOOKLET
Ph.D. 10 Psycbology

Marks: 75 BaD Ticket No.:

Time: 2 booR
INSTRUcnONS Road tbe foDowlog lostruelioos careruUy.
1.
Write your Hall Ticket Nomber in the space provided above and on the IlIISWOr shoot given to you.

2.
Hand over the answer shect <ll the end orthe examination.

3.
This question paper has three sections -Section A. Section B. and Section C.

4.
Eaeh section ClInies equal marks (25 marks each).


S. Choose one question from Section A and Section B. There is no choice in Section C.
This book cootalos 3 pages cxdadlag tbis page
SECTION A

15l1farks
Answer any ONE ofthe followinS.
I. Desisn a sun'cy to study the health risk behaYiour of younS adults in India on a sample of5000. Pn:pare an instrument of 10 items for this purpose.
2. Desisn a study to find outlhe relative impact nf relaxation thcropy and rel:lXlltion in
combination with cognitive behavioural theropy in treating PTSD.
3. Being n Health Psycholol;ist, hunch is to pun-lie research on positive mental
health.1'rep:u'e a research proposal 10 idenlify the predictors ofposillYe menlal health.
SECTIONB
25 Marks Answer any ONE ofthe followins.
I. management of life style diseases, social support plays an importllDt role' ­Discuss.
2. Whal are the socio-culturol factors influcncins health? Discuss thcir role in health
behaviour.
3. Critically cYaluate the illness -welln..s continuum citins releyant research findings.
1

SECI10NC

25 Marks
nVD views on eUlhanasia arc disc:ussed below. Which ofthe two viell's do you support? PuJ your own arguments on the issue in nol more than 250 lI'ordt. Give a luitable title to your
Vlewl
Legalizing euthanasia would help alleviate suffering oftennin,lIy ill patients. It
would be inhuman Ilnd unfair to make Ou:m endure the intolerable pain. In case of individuals suffering from incuruble or in conditions where effective treatment
wouldn't affect their quality of life. they should be given the liberty to choose induced death. The motive of euthonosi. is to aid in dying painlessly and thus should be eonsidered and accepted by law. lthough killing in an attempt to defend oneself is fur
different from mercy killing, law does find it worth approving. In an attempt to provide medical and emotional care to the patient. doctor does and should prescribe medicines that will relieve his suffering even if the medications cause gross side effczts. This
means that dealing with agony and distress should be the priority even if it affects the life expectancy. Euthanasia follows Ute same theory ofdeo.ling with lonnent in a way to help one die peacefully out ofthe compromising situation.
Euthanasia should be D natural cxtension of patient's rights allowing him to
decide the value of life and death for him. Maintaining life support systems oreinst the patienfs wish is considered unethical by law as well as medieal philuophy. If the patient has the right to discontinue treatment why would he not have the right to shorten his lifetime to escape the intolerable anguish? Isn't the pain ofwaiting for death frightening and traumatic? The argument that family heirs would misuse the euthanasia
rights for wealth inhcritanl.':e does not hold much water. Even in the abst.ncc of
legalized mercy killing, the relatives can withdraw the life support sy'1ems that could lead to the =Iy de.th of the soid individual. This can be considered as passive involuntary euthanasia. Here, they aren'l .ctively ","using the deo.th, but passivel;
waiting for it without the patient's consent. Present leg31 restrictions leave both the
incurable patients as well as pro euthanasia activists helpless who approve euthanasia as good will gesture for patient's dignity. The right ofa lenninally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction ofhistory and is implicit in the concept ofordered liberty.
VIew 2
Mercy killing is morally ineolTCCt and should be forbidden by law. It is a homicide. Murdering another human cannot be rationalized under any circumstance. Human life deserves exceptional security and protection. When you can't induce a life
into a cadaver, you have no right to take away the life of an individual. Advanced medical technology has made it possible to enhance human life spari and quality of life.
2

· The same technology may sometime come up with the cure for the p:ltient. who is elossified as tenninally ill. Palliative care and Rehabilitation Centers arc better alternatives to help disabled or patients approaching death live a pam-free: life. Euthanasia has a potential danger ofmisuse. There is no way you c:ul be re,IIly sure if the decision towards assisted suicide is voluntaJy or forced by others. So, implementing euthanasia would mean many unlawful deaths. Legalizing euthanasia would be like empowering law abusers and increasing distrust of patients towards doctors. Mercy
killing would cause decline in medical c:lrc :md cause victimization of the most
vulnerable section in society. Mercy killing may tronsfonn itselffrom the "right to die" to "rigbt to kill".
Apart from the aforementioned rc:t,nns, then.: arc some aspects where there is a
greater possibility of euthanasia being mishandled. What ifthe pain threshold is belo" optimum and the patient pcrcrhes the circumstances to be not worthy of living? How would one know whether the wi.h to die is the result of unbalanced thought process in mentalI)" ill patients or a conscious logical decision of a tcnninally ill patient? Laws
against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to protect patients from L:nwarrantcd decisions. In a society where health care takes a oockscat, ineuning expenditure in prolonging life with disproportiona:c or no outcome. the apprehensions of cuth:masia
arc far from fantasy. The Hippocratic Oath taken by medical professionals underlines self-restraint against tenninating life. Nobody, including the patient or the f3JTIily has the moral right to demand violation of such valued ethics of a highly esteemed
profession.
3