“3 people are dying and you can only save one, which one do you pick?” interview question

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

beattheprocess

Membership Revoked
Removed
2+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
276
Reaction score
462
How do you correctly answer this question? What would give one person obvious priority over another?

Members don't see this ad.
 
For me, it would be an analysis of which person has the best chance of survival based on evidence. If all equal, random.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
The one that you believe has the best chance, the other two will need hospice. This question is from the Hurricane Katrina that physicians and residents had to make the choice at that time, and you need to be familiar with what hospice and palliative care means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
For me, it would be an analysis of which person has the best chance of survival based on evidence. If all equal, random.
The one that you believe has the best chance, the other two will need hospice.

This was my initial thought, however there are certain variations of this question that add more details which might be making me overthink the question. I think one example from a SDN school interview feedback page was that 3 people are in a car wreck, one is a professor that found a cure for a disease, a pregnant woman and a 5 y/o child. What would be appropriate here? I was thinking the first one I saw or the easiest one to get to.
 
There is not right or wrong answer there, the question does add some distractions to confuse you. The same rationale applies to the case between an 80 years old professor who wins Nobel prize and a 20 years old with liver cirrhosis due to alcohol. In this case, the distraction is that the 20 year old has alcohol problem. In your case, the professor that found a cure is the distraction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
For me, it would be an analysis of which person has the best chance of survival based on evidence. If all equal, random.

I think if all equal, it might be better to save whoever came in first. You think that is more fair or nah?
 
that's such a kindergarten question. The school having that question just shows how naive its administration is.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
that's such a kindergarten question. The school having that question just shows how naive its administration is.
You ask your kindergarten age kids who they want to let die? Weird.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 29 users
You ask your kindergarten age kids who they want to let die? Weird.
Lol. harsh but it proves how bad a kindergarten teacher I would be. But I remember being asked that question when I was a kid. seriously.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
The prettiest
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
Referral to the ED.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users
Members don't see this ad :)
@beattheprocess Ethical considerations are always based on framework, there is usually never a universal answer. Are you looking at the question from a consequentialist perspective or a categorical imperative? Once you've established a value theory, what is your criterion or your methodology for making sure your theory holds up? Let's say that we're going with consequentialism as a value theory. Are we going to go with utilitarianism or possibly a weighted form of a stakeholder dilemma as a criterion for deciding a course of ethical action. Finally, when choosing your models how are you going to implement based on your selected theory and criterion? How does it hold up to the actual situation? Are you satisfied with it on a personal level?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
University of Washington medical ethics page has information regarding this topics.

Also, look up how triaging and allocation of resources in normal and crisis situations are handled.

But there is usually a generally better answer for many of those questions. The answer that I have seen is allocation of resources based on the facts (best candidate for the transplant, best chance of survival etc.). Medicine is evidence based so whatever your answer is, please involve some evidence gathering and support your position with facts not opinions and personal beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Triage is situation-dependent. If it's a war zone you're going to take the most mobile (and thus least likely to get you killed), if it's a mass casualty you take the one that is most likely to survive with the least heroic of interventions as resources are scarce, if it's the Titanic you're probably going to pick the youngest and most vulnerable, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
This was my initial thought, however there are certain variations of this question that add more details which might be making me overthink the question. I think one example from a SDN school interview feedback page was that 3 people are in a car wreck, one is a professor that found a cure for a disease, a pregnant woman and a 5 y/o child. What would be appropriate here? I was thinking the first one I saw or the easiest one to get to.
Pregnant woman is a two for one. High five the professor as you drag the woman from the car to safety
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Seriously, I get all this fad about MMI. At least the questions should resemble to some real life scenarios. Any school that would ask me a question like that will just move to the bottom of my list because it shows lack of creativity and total banality of the administration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I do not want to be mean, but your lack of empathy, your arrogance, and looking down on other people annoy me.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: 8 users
Lol. harsh but it proves how bad a kindergarten teacher I would be. But I remember being asked that question when I was a kid. seriously.

1571750121946.gif
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: 7 users
I think if all equal, it might be better to save whoever came in first. You think that is more fair or nah?
I think that's one way to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There’s no “right” answer, just give a reasonable explanation for why you choose the answer that you did and move on. The only wrong answer is to save none of them (unless all of them are @Lucca and then that’s fine)
 
  • Sad
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 2 users
I do not want to be mean, but your lack of empathy, your arrogance, and looking down on other people annoy me.
I didn't want to respond. But in any case, all I am saying is that how do they really get to know a candidate by asking some artificial question like this? How did I look down on anyone here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I didn't want to respond. But in any case, all I am saying is that how do they really get to know a candidate by asking some artificial question like this? How did I look down on anyone here?
:bang:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I don’t think that there is a “right” and “wrong “answer”, well maybe besides extreme wrongs. I’d rather view a question like that as a prompt to demonstrate the candidates thinking, critical analysis skills, and communication.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I didn't want to respond. But in any case, all I am saying is that how do they really get to know a candidate by asking some artificial question like this? How did I look down on anyone here?

The point is not necessarily what you say, its how you get there. Ive practiced MMIs with friends and its easy to see even with basic questions, where differences in our thinking shine through due to our experiences. Empathy is being able to act on your compassion effectively - it comes from somewhere. They don’t want you to be able to say “wow that’s so sad” they want you to say, “this is what I’ll do” and the latter comes due to your values. If you can’t answer a question in such a way that your brand of empathy and practicality comes through then you aren’t answering the question correctly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
But in any case, all I am saying is that how do they really get to know a candidate by asking some artificial question like this?

Do you think that you can get to know someone through any interaction that takes place in a single work day? Some candidates rehearse just the right portrayal of themselves for weeks before an interview, to the point where it's very difficult to get a genuine, unrehearsed reaction from questions about personality or experience. A question like this - a situation that they are unlikely to have rehearsed - is more likely to get a genuine response, and serves as an opportunity to look at how a candidate thinks, analyzes the question, and forms a response. Or even if a candidate is capable of forming a response to a question that they weren't anticipating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
The point is not necessarily what you say, its how you get there. Ive practiced MMIs with friends and its easy to see even with basic questions, where differences in our thinking shines through due to our experiences. Empathy is being able to act on your compassion effectively - it comes from somewhere. They don’t want you to be able to say “wow that’s so sad” they want you to say, “this is what I’ll do” and the latter comes due to your values. If you can’t answer a question in a way that your brand of empathy and practicality comes through then you aren’t answering the question correctly.
empathy can only be shown by talking about YOUR OWN experience, not some MMI crap that's completely standardized. Medicine should not be standardized, nor should the interview process. MMI's are designed by lazy admissions office which doesn't want to invest in the process of really getting to know their candidates. It's a shame that CASPER and MMI are a thing at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Do you think that you can get to know someone through any interaction that takes place in a single work day? Some candidates rehearse just the right portrayal of themselves for weeks before an interview, to the point where it's very difficult to get a genuine, unrehearsed reaction from questions about personality or experience. A question like this - a situation that they are unlikely to have rehearsed - is more likely to get a genuine response, and serves as an opportunity to look at how a candidate thinks, analyzes the question, and forms a response. Or even if a candidate is capable of forming a response to a question that they weren't anticipating.
an experienced interviewer can tell. I sat across from interviewees for many occasions and I can generally tell whether someone is acting or being genuine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
an experienced interviewer can tell. I sat across from interviewees for many occasions and I can generally tell whether someone is acting or being genuine.

But an interviewer isn't trying to tell if someone is rehearsed or not - they're trying to determine if they're right for the program. An interview can be a literal turning point for someone's life; they're likely to be nervous, and to have over-prepared. But sometimes, even if their prepared answers are on-point with the school's mission and an ideal candidate, it can be difficult to determine if an interviewee is a) a really good actor who is just spouting the party line, or b) someone who is genuinely a good candidate, but has the same 'rehearsed' responses. An opener like the situation in question can help make all of the candidates a little more open and thoughtful throughout the interview, and expose the good and the bad in the interviewees that might be hidden by rehearsal otherwise.

Plus, the only way for an interviewer to become an experienced interviewer is...experience. You're always going to have some less-experienced interviewers.
 
empathy can only be shown by talking about YOUR OWN experience, not some MMI crap that's completely standardized. Medicine should not be standardized, nor should the interview process. MMI's are designed by lazy admissions office which doesn't want to invest in the process of really getting to know their candidates. It's a shame that CASPER and MMI are a thing at all.

100% disagree. You can rehearse your backstory and tailor it in such a way that carefully planned examples of your empathy come through, and that isn't necessarily genuine. I also disagree that an MMI is standardized- i think you have it mixed up, if anything a traditional interview is standardized whereas the MMI leaves a lot open. You can bring up anything, as long as it can inform upon your response to the prompt. Interviewers can also ask you anything- I had an interviewer let me go on about my reasoning for 3 minutes, and then out of nowhere reversed the entire situation, and had me give a response. Its short-sighted to view the MMI as devoid of creativity
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
But an interviewer isn't trying to tell if someone is rehearsed or not - they're trying to determine if they're right for the program. An interview can be a literal turning point for someone's life; they're likely to be nervous, and to have over-prepared. But sometimes, even if their prepared answers are on-point with the school's mission and an ideal candidate, it can be difficult to determine if an interviewee is a) a really good actor who is just spouting the party line, or b) someone who is genuinely a good candidate, but has the same 'rehearsed' responses. An opener like the situation in question can help make all of the candidates a little more open and thoughtful throughout the interview, and expose the good and the bad in the interviewees that might be hidden by rehearsal otherwise.

Plus, the only way for an interviewer to become an experienced interviewer is...experience. You're always going to have some less-experienced interviewers.

You should never rehearse to the level of sounding disingenuous. But let me just tell you from my experiences both as an interviewer and an interviewee, being genuine is probably the most valuable trait in any interview. A good interviewer can tell you are nervous vs disingenuous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
100% disagree. You can rehearse your backstory and tailor it in such a way that carefully planned examples of your empathy come through, and that isn't necessarily genuine. I also disagree that an MMI is standardized- i think you have it mixed up, if anything a traditional interview is standardized whereas the MMI leaves a lot open. You can bring up anything, as long as it can inform upon your response to the prompt. Interviewers can also ask you anything- I had an interviewer let me go on about my reasoning for 3 minutes, and then out of nowhere reversed the entire situation, and had me give a response. Its short-sighted to view the MMI as devoid of creativity
it's about the delivery.... not about the stories and examples.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1 user
Not all MMI stations are straight up ethical scenarios. There are plenty of opportunities to bring up your own personal experiences. In fact I prefer MMI because I have one experience in particular that is central to the kind of physician I want to be. MMI allows me to bring it up at every possible station without it becoming stale or repetitive because it’s new info to each interviewer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
it's about the delivery.... not about the stories and examples.

I'm gonna check out bc this doesn't make any sense now. Responses to a traditional interview are more likely to have a rehearsed delivery...so an MMI is more likely to force someone to give a genuine response where they have to draw on opinions and experiences (which yup, are relevant) organically.... not sure what your point is anymore
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I'm gonna check out bc this doesn't make any sense now. Responses to a traditional interview are more likely to have a rehearsed delivery...so an MMI is more likely to force someone to give a genuine response where they have to draw on opinions and experiences (which yup, are relevant) organically.... not sure what your point is anymore
my point is that how you tell your story can show whether you are genuine or not. It's the same as how you write your secondary essays and personal statement. We always have a subconscious mind that directs us to one way or the other. The same story can be told differently or written differently. It's really how you tell the story rather than what your story is that show how genuine you are. Hope that makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You should never rehearse to the level of sounding disingenuous. But let me just tell you from my experiences both as an interviewer and an interviewee, being genuine is probably the most valuable trait in any interview. A good interviewer can tell you are nervous vs disingenuous.

Again, an interview can make or break someone's career. Over-rehearsing and being nervous for an interview is common; but this, despite getting in the way of an interview, is usually not a fatal flaw in a career. A 'good interviewer' knows how to make good candidates open up. Being able to tell that an interviewee is nervous (as opposed to disingenuous) doesn't help you if their nerves get in the way of the interview. You don't want to overlook a great candidate because you didn't ask them a question that inspired an answer outside of the lines they've drawn.

What type of candidates have you interviewed?
 
Again, an interview can make or break someone's career. Over-rehearsing and being nervous for an interview is common; but this, despite getting in the way of an interview, is usually not a fatal flaw in a career. A 'good interviewer' knows how to make good candidates open up. Being able to tell that an interviewee is nervous (as opposed to disingenuous) doesn't help you if their nerves get in the way of the interview. You don't want to overlook a great candidate because you didn't ask them a question that inspired an answer outside of the lines they've drawn.

What type of candidates have you interviewed?
wall street gunners.
 
Again, an interview can make or break someone's career. Over-rehearsing and being nervous for an interview is common; but this, despite getting in the way of an interview, is usually not a fatal flaw in a career. A 'good interviewer' knows how to make good candidates open up. Being able to tell that an interviewee is nervous (as opposed to disingenuous) doesn't help you if their nerves get in the way of the interview. You don't want to overlook a great candidate because you didn't ask them a question that inspired an answer outside of the lines they've drawn.

What type of candidates have you interviewed?
again, nerves are usually a sign of immaturity, which is also something you should not have going into an interview.
 
  • Wow
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Team up with two other interviewees to save all three of them. Medicine is a team sport.

Just make sure that you help the sickest person to get the most points. ;)

(stupid questions deserve stupid answers)
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: 7 users
You will see later in life.

Au contraire, if you would like to get into it, there are countless explanations for "nerves" that have nothing to do with immaturity. But I suspect it might be an explanation for your tendency to overgeneralize, and your refusal to acknowledge the validity of other viewpoints (as demonstrated by your responses on this thread).

Good luck, though! Let us know how it goes!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Let me know what medical school you end up going to so I can be sure to avoid it. God, you're so condescending.
I am not. I am just stating the truth. If I really wanted to be condescending, I would say something like “probably I wouldn’t have to let you know where I end up..” but that’s just not how I will proceed. I wish everyone the best here and want to give my two cents from my experiences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I am not. I am just stating the truth. If I really wanted to be condescending, I would say something like “probably I wouldn’t have to let you where I end up..” but that’s just not how I will proceed. I wish everyone the best here and want to give my two cents from my experiences.

You're not stating the truth, though; you're stating you're interpretation of something as a fact, and fighting (arrogantly) those who disagree with your interpretation (and might even know better than you).

Your first comments assert that a single question (which is not an unheard of scenario) makes the administrative naive, banal, and lacking creativity, before voicing your contempt for MMIs in totality. When others have voiced disagreement or pointed out that perhaps your inability to see the value in the question lies with you, your responses have been, "I don't want to respond, but..." or "If I wanted to be condescending, I would say..." before affirming what your accusers have said about you.

I would suggest some quiet introspection. When the world seems against you, there's probably a reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
You're not stating the truth, though; you're stating you're interpretation of something as a fact, and fighting (arrogantly) those who disagree with your interpretation (and might even know better than you).

Your first comments assert that a single question (which is not an unheard of scenario) makes the administrative naive, banal, and lacking creativity, before voicing your contempt for MMIs in totality. When others have voiced disagreement or pointed out that perhaps your inability to see the value in the question lies with you, your responses have been, "I don't want to respond, but..." or "If I wanted to be condescending, I would say..." before affirming what your accusers have said about you.

I would suggest some quiet introspection. When the world seems against you, there's probably a reason.
Peace off. Good luck with your interviews.
 
How do you correctly answer this question? What would give one person obvious priority over another?

Not sure what's going on in this thread but quoting these posts for visibility:

There is not one right answer to this question. All we want to see when we ask these types of questions is your thought process - can you think critically? can you communicate your rationale in a way that makes sense? can you consider multiple perspectives? It doesn't matter which person you pick or why you chose them, it matters that you take a position, explain why it makes sense, use your brain, and demonstrate the ability to see multiple sides of an issue. Don't overthink it.
Triage is situation-dependent. If it's a war zone you're going to take the most mobile (and thus least likely to get you killed), if it's a mass casualty you take the one that is most likely to survive with the least heroic of interventions as resources are scarce, if it's the Titanic you're probably going to pick the youngest and most vulnerable, etc.
These do resemble real life scenarios as was pointed out prior to your post. (see below). I was also pointed out the purpose here is to see how you think, how you see a situation, how you analyze, how you react. The only right or wrong here is can you think and make a case as to your decision. As a physician or any medical profession or even any solider, you will learn the concept of triage, deciding on the order of treatment (or non treatment). This is simply an extension of prioritization, something that you should have been doing most of your life when faced with more than one task

And @Ultimax your comment on how this poster annoys you was a bit self-centered. Be inclusive. the poster annoys everybody
There’s no “right” answer, just give a reasonable explanation for why you choose the answer that you did and move on. The only wrong answer is to save none of them (unless all of them are @Lucca and then that’s fine)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Top