Are Ethical Questions Fair in Interviews

[Narmerguy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Many schools infuse some ethical questions into their interviews.

Clearly they are not always looking for the "right" answer, but perhaps a show of intellectual depth or introspection in thinking about these issues...

But even still, is it fair to expect everyone to have thought about these issues already? And does a better answer really indicate one's capacity to contemplate and grapple with these issues? It seems to me that success with these questions unfairly favors those who've simply had exposure to these sort of bioethics issues--when the school could just as simply expose all the students to these topics in their own curriculum.

What do you think? I pose this question not because I feel any specific way about it (although I do) but because I'm curious if others find it "fair". I enjoy bioethics and would probably enjoy the opportunity to discuss these challenging topics with both colleagues and mentors.

 

[paul411]

I think ethical questions are a little unfair for interviews but fair game for secondaries where applicants have a chance to research and analyze the issue and form a coherent response.

 

[DrBowtie]

I think its fair. It forces you to often think on your feet much in the way that patient's questions will. We didnt get much/if any real life bioethics in med school so everything I've gained has been experience based.

 

[BushidoBrown]

^ What he said.

 

[NYRN]

As a doctor there will be many times when ethics come into play and as long as what they are asking could be asked of laypeople I don't see why it isn't fair.

The answer might not have a right or wrong but as long as you take the patients wishes into account and weigh the good and bad I'm sure they will be satisfied.

 

[ponyo]

But even still, is it fair to expect everyone to have thought about these issues already? And does a better answer really indicate one's capacity to contemplate and grapple with these issues? It seems to me that success with these questions unfairly favors those who've simply had exposure to these sort of bioethics issues--when the school could just as simply expose all the students to these topics in their own curriculum.

I think it's fair to weed out people who give grossly inappropriate answers (not all opinions are equal and some are incorrigibly indefensible), but I agree that exposure to bioethics can give one's answers a sense of sophistication that cannot in fact be attributed to individual intellect or moral proclivity. Just as an introspective, philosophical person is not necessarily a more moral person, such a pre-med does not necessarily make a better physician.

 

[pancakesyrup]

I often hear about the question of healthcare being a right, and wonder if giving the politically incorrect answer will hurt someone's chance of acceptance.

 

[FattySlug]

I think its fair. It forces you to often think on your feet much in the way that patient's questions will. We didnt get much/if any real life bioethics in med school so everything I've gained has been experience based.

I don't think it is the same. Patients' questions will mostly involve the nature of their illness, course of treatment and possible outcomes. Those are the questions you can answer with knowledge. There will be instances where you have to answer difficult questions, but a lot of the time, you will have time to think it over; even in that scenario, like a girl asks if she should get an abortion, you can step aside and lay out the options, pros and cons for each without pointing her one way or the other.

Bioethics questions are controversial and can offend some people who think another way. How can you compare that to the questions patients would ask?

I think it is fair to ask such questions just to see how the applicant would respond but unfair if adcom expects people answer a certain way; very similar to discriminating people based on their belief; like pro choice or pro life you got it "wrong" and you are out. But if such a school, I doubt if there is any, has that attitude I would prefer not to go there.

 

[NickNaylor]

I often found the ethical questions to be pretty simple. I don't think the expectation is that applicants be experts on ethical issues - that'd be asking way too much. However, I think it's fair to expect that people that are serious about medicine have at least heard about and/or even thought about some of the more controversial issues. I think in most cases any answer is acceptable as long as you can clearly articulate your position and back it up using non-controversial reasoning or facts.

I think the main purposes in asking about these questions, though, are:

1) to see if the applicant can think on his/her feet. Applicants simply can't practice or rehearse answers to a literally infinite set of questions.

2) to see if the applicant can formulate an argument that is logical and at least partially objective/reasonable (i.e., no "because THIS IS WRONG" type of arguments).

3) to see if the applicant is mature enough to have actual values and convictions. Note that this doesn't necessarily conflict with #2.

If someone provided an answer that made them seem dogmatic, that probably wouldn't be good. I also don't think it would if someone provided an answer that made it pretty obvious that they either didn't think about the question or were incapable of producing a reasonable argument.

 

[Soulstice]

I agree with everyone who thinks it's testing your ability to think on your feet. However, acknowledging that it's hard to build a well-informed opinion quickly (the very factor they're testing for) the way I'd imagine handling this question would be:

1. Define what you see as the main dilemma(s)
2. Present the pros/cons of each side involved.
3. All sides considered, articulate some kind of opinion.
4. For humility, admit the reasons your opinion might not be perfectly accurate.
5. ???
6. Profit.

 

[FattySlug]

I often found the ethical questions to be pretty simple. I don't think the expectation is that applicants be experts on ethical issues - that'd be asking way too much. However, I think it's fair to expect that people that are serious about medicine have at least heard about and/or even thought about some of the more controversial issues. I think in most cases any answer is acceptable as long as you can clearly articulate your position and back it up using non-controversial reasoning or facts.

I think the main purposes in asking about these questions, though, are:

1) to see if the applicant can think on his/her feet. Applicants simply can't practice or rehearse answers to a literally infinite set of questions.

2) to see if the applicant can formulate an argument that is logical and at least partially objective/reasonable (i.e., no "because THIS IS WRONG" type of arguments).

3) to see if the applicant is mature enough to have actual values and convictions. Note that this doesn't necessarily conflict with #2.

If someone provided an answer that made them seem dogmatic, that probably wouldn't be good. I also don't think it would if someone provided an answer that made it pretty obvious that they either didn't think about the question or were incapable of producing a reasonable argument.

Have you encountered any ethical questions when you applied? Share them if you can please.

 

[NickNaylor]

Have you encountered any ethical questions when you applied? Share them if you can please.

I had a few but I only remember one specifically. I mentioned it in a past thread, but I was basically asked if I thought it was acceptable to force doctors to report morbid obesity to the state given the fact that they're forced to report malnutrition if they encounter it (and can be prosecuted if they don't).

I was also asked if I thought if the federal government could ban gay marriage but that was in the context of discussing my honors thesis, which was looking at the right to privacy in the Constitution. I wouldn't expect something like that completely off the wall.

 

[mauberley]

I agree with everyone who thinks it's testing your ability to think on your feet. However, acknowledging that it's hard to build a well-informed opinion quickly (the very factor they're testing for) the way I'd imagine handling this question would be:

1. Define what you see as the main dilemma(s)
2. Present the pros/cons of each side involved.
3. All sides considered, articulate some kind of opinion.
4. For humility, admit the reasons your opinion might not be perfectly accurate.
5. ???
6. Profit.

I've seen this strategy on a standardized test before.

 

[LizzyM]

What I prefer is to present ethical questions that relate to the common experiences of college students. Rather than ask, "what will you do when you are a doctor?" ask "what would you do if you saw this happen tomorrow in a classroom or in a shadowing experience or in your dorm?"

 

[Narmerguy]

What I prefer is to present ethical questions that relate to the common experiences of college students. Rather than ask, "what will you do when you are a doctor?" ask "what would you do if you saw this happen tomorrow in a classroom or in a shadowing experience or in your dorm?"

I like this a lot.