Problem 1: Devise a philosophy for making medical ethical decisions. Make it adequate and clear enough to handle all our debates. Make it simple enough to avoid obvious inconsistencies within the philosophy itself, e.g., "I am a utilitarian who also believes in the absolute value of confidentiality in all decisions!" is contradictory.
Problem 2: Then apply your philosophy to each of our debates and show how it handles each of them. Make sure there are no inconsistencies between the ways you deal with the various cases.
Problem 3: Now determine whether your "real" opinions on these cases diverge from how your "philosophy" handled them. In other words, did you arbitrarily for this exercise choose a simple philosophy for application OR did you devise one that accurately encompasses your real views? Or did you find it hard or impossible to formulate a philosophy that adequately reflects your opinions?
Problem 4: Finally reflect philosophically on the pros and cons of the value of consistency in the moral enterprise, i.e. as regards devising a coherent philosophy and being able to apply it consistently. How is it important and how is it a liability? If you want an A, reflect deeply on this question!