Controversial Interview Questions

[Shawnpremed]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I wanted some fresher opinions than from '05, so if in an interview you were asked, say about your stance on whether abortion is ethical, and you happen to believe it is ethical, should you still present counter-arguments? Would this undermine your stance?

Do you appear weak/unimformed if you choose stay neutral?

Thanks for any help

 

[JonathanMD]

I wanted some fresher opinions than from '05, so if in an interview you were asked, say about your stance on whether abortion is ethical, and you happen to believe it is ethical, should you still present counter-arguments? Would this undermine your stance?

Do you appear weak/unimformed if you choose stay neutral?

Thanks for any help

I think the worst thing you can do is waffle on the subject. You don't want to present bullet points for both sides. It makes you looks like you memorized it all and have no original thoughts about it yourself.

Have an answer.

Fall on one side of the fence or the other. Maybe more towards the middle, but have an answer. Let them present the counter-arguments in their follow up questions.

 

[thegetupkid]

I think the worst thing you can do is waffle on the subject. You don't want to present bullet points for both sides. It makes you looks like you memorized it all and have no original thoughts about it yourself.

Have an answer.

Fall on one side of the fence or the other. Maybe more towards the middle, but have an answer. Let them present the counter-arguments in their follow up questions.

I semi-disagree. Presentation of both sides of an argument and consideration of the possible validity of contradictory points exhibits a great maturity. Still, I do think you should ultimately agree with one side or the other to a greater extent.

 

[atomi]

-

 

[binko]

If they ask what you think, you should tell them what you think. At least that is ethical.

 

[zpiff]

I semi-disagree. Presentation of both sides of an argument and consideration of the possible validity of contradictory points exhibits a great maturity. Still, I do think you should ultimately agree with one side or the other to a greater extent.

I agree with this. Presenting the arguments for both sides and then making a justifiable conclusion based on the arguments has worked very well for me.

 

[urrugby]

I would not recommend trying to argue that elective abortions are ethical. Whether or not they should be legal is one thing, but I don't think there is anybody out there that thinks killing a healthy fetus is a morally correct thing to do.

This thread shouldn't become a "who is right" discussion on abortion, but I disagree. It is certainly possible to make an ethical arguement for elective abortions (pretty sure every college's intro to medical ethics course deals with this).

Regardless, you should have an opinion on the topic, and wherever that falls, you should be able to defend your stance. Granted, if your opinion is that every woman should be allowed to terminate healthy pregnancies at any point, I would curb that to within more accepted boundaries for the sake of your interview. You should also be able to discuss the arguements against your stance, A) in case they ask (which they may), and B) to prepare yourself to respond to alternative opinions.

 

[cpants]

I would not recommend trying to argue that elective abortions are ethical. Whether or not they should be legal is one thing, but I don't think there is anybody out there that thinks killing a healthy fetus is a morally correct thing to do.

Uh, yeah there are plenty of people who think abortions are ethical.

The right answer to most of these ethical questions is something that shows you respect the patient's autonomy. So for abortion you could say something like I personally believe it's wrong, and I would not participate in it, but I know that my role is to be truthful to the patient about all of her options. Go from there.

 

[virusgirl]

Uh, yeah there are plenty of people who think abortions are ethical.

The right answer to most of these ethical questions is something that shows you respect the patient's autonomy. So for abortion you could say something like I personally believe it's wrong, and I would not participate in it, but I know that my role is to be truthful to the patient about all of her options. Go from there.

👍 You took the words right out of my mouth! For most ethical questions (not just abortion), your ability to respect the patient and their wishes will demonstrate your maturity, regardless of your actual personal opinion. This is what your interviewer is ultimately looking for.

 

[Bacchus]

Cpants has this one. Briefly on abortion (I'll be using my stance):

I personally feel that abortion should be an option to woman that are carrying a fetus. In my opinion, the woman's right to her own body is of utmost importance and regardless of my feelings, I will council her to the best of my ability keeping her expectations in mind even if they contradict my own feelings.

 

[LizzyM]

Forget abortion. Try answering the same question on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. How would you respond if the patient were a 17.5 year old with a painful terminal illness.

 

[futuredoctor99]

I wanted some fresher opinions than from '05, so if in an interview you were asked, say about your stance on whether abortion is ethical, and you happen to believe it is ethical, should you still present counter-arguments? Would this undermine your stance?

Do you appear weak/unimformed if you choose stay neutral?

Thanks for any help

Look up the voting demographics of the region of the school and research the school's political biasesl. It's best to present both sides but lean towards what the interviewer is statistically more likely to accept. Try to use objective facts (especially scientific if you are leaning towards pro life) to further your argument.

 

[Bacchus]

Forget abortion. Try answering the same question on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. How would you respond if the patient were a 17.5 year old with a painful terminal illness.

No to euthanasia... yes to PAS. I think this is actually a good combination to give people, Lizzy, because many view them as the same thing when they definitely are not.

 

[virusgirl]

Cpants has this one. Briefly on abortion (I'll be using my stance):

I personally feel that abortion should be an option to woman that are carrying a fetus. In my opinion, the woman's right to her own body is of utmost importance and regardless of my feelings, I will council her to the best of my ability keeping her expectations in mind even if they contradict my own feelings.

Bravo, Bacchus. I said pretty much the same thing on my interviews. I consider it my responsibility as a doctor to be an advocate for my patients, and if one of my pregnant patients is considering an abortion, I feel I need to provide her with whatever information she needs to make a decision, including a timely referral if I'm not willing to perform the procedure myself.

(I would also like to take this opportunity to say that your avatars are declining in hotness. Step it up, dude 😉)

 

[Brent8927]

Look up the voting demographics of the region of the school and research the school's political biasesl. It's best to present both sides but lean towards what the interviewer is statistically more likely to accept. Try to use objective facts (especially scientific if you are leaning towards pro life) to further your argument.

Interviewers can usually tell when you are not being genuine--you should always state what you really believe and what your real thoughts/feelings are, otherwise the truth may come out. If it doesn't, it's pretty likely you still won't sound very sincere if you are just trying to tell the interviewer what they want to hear.

I definitely took different sides on issues that my interviewers may not have agreed with--but what they care most about (and they said this) is hearing how you think, rather than what you think.

Also, stating objective evidence is definitely a good idea, but it doesn't tell interviewers anything about you. In addition to knowing how you think, they want to know both what you think and what you feel. So I would encourage people to state both objective and subjective evidence.

 

[witness23]

you know, you can reflect the law of the nation, the state and the policies of the hospitals. Of course, my interviewer skirted by using Oregon for euthanasia.

no matter what your beliefs are, I think it is important that we look out for the patient. Its hard to put ourselves in their situation. I would love to think that I am brave enough to not abort (or encourage my piece to keep) a child, who may be born with down syndrome, etc. However, I really don't know. I'm not sure about possibly limiting my future and the future of others, bringing someone up someone in an unprepared situation, and also affecting the environment that other kids, if I have any, might have. In the same regard, I really don't know what it feels like to be the family of, or the person with, a terminal illness. Since Oregon legalized physician assisted euthanasia, not TOO many people have taken "advantage" of this law. I think the least you can do is to refer the patient to another doctor if you feel uncomfortable, to make sure that he/she does not take matter into their own hands - leading to unprepared discomfort for the person and the family.

well, idk. i guess this is something we will learn about and hope to not have to deal with.

 

[witness23]

Bravo, Bacchus. I said pretty much the same thing on my interviews. I consider it my responsibility as a doctor to be an advocate for my patients, and if one of my pregnant patients is considering an abortion, I feel I need to provide her with whatever information she needs to make a decision, including a timely referral if I'm not willing to perform the procedure myself.

(I would also like to take this opportunity to say that your avatars are declining in hotness. Step it up, dude 😉)

yup.

 

[Bacchus]

Bravo, Bacchus. I said pretty much the same thing on my interviews. I consider it my responsibility as a doctor to be an advocate for my patients, and if one of my pregnant patients is considering an abortion, I feel I need to provide her with whatever information she needs to make a decision, including a timely referral if I'm not willing to perform the procedure myself.

(I would also like to take this opportunity to say that your avatars are declining in hotness. Step it up, dude 😉)

Fixed for you.

 

[MadEvans]

I got this one: "Should we tax, or charge more for insurance premiums, the obese since their utilization of health care resources is greater than the non-obese?"

If they are nice, they'll often pick from topics relating to your major. I'm a nutrition major, so I actually was asked something relating to obesity at multiple different interviews.

So if you're a philosophy major, I'd be afraid... I'd be very afraid. 😎

 

[atomi]

-

 

[atomi]

-

 

[binko]

This is easy. Everybody has the right to end his or her own life.

Except people who society thinks "should" want to live -- which is why if someone discloses a suicide risk, interventions are often mandated by law. So there's gotta be a line there somewhere.

 

[Brent8927]

This is easy. Everybody has the right to end his or her own life. The doctor should never terminate that life even if requested, however. Abortion is not concerned with a person's own life, but rather another life.

I don't think it's so easy. There are number of ways to argue against this. First of all would be compassionate use of medicine--don't we, as physicians, have a responsibility to ease the pain of others? And what if their life itself is painful--do they have a right to terminate their own life with the comfort that modern medicine can provide? Do we as physicians (future physicians, really) have an obligation to care for this person, even if it goes against our moral framework?

On the other hand, we do take an oath to "do no harm." But where is more harm done--by abandoning the patient and denying care or by carrying out their wishes?

(FYI I'm not taking a particular stance on this issue--just presenting a feasible alternative argument)

Abortion is most definitely concerned with two people's lives--the main reason to terminate a pregnancy is it is undesired by one life (the mother). Personally I do not support abortions and will not perform them (but will notify someone seeking one of who can aid them--that is the responsibility of any physician), but to claim that the argument is as simple as you state it underscores the true depth and complexity of the issue. People disagree about abortion and euthanasia/physician-assisted-suicide precisely because they are so complex and incredibly hard to justify with certainty either way (to the extent that the majority of the public would support one over the other).

Also, I agree with an earlier poster that abortion is probably not ever the ethical thing to do. Nobody is ever pro-abortion--they are pro-choice. I don't think many would say killing/aborting a fetus is the ethical thing to do, but rather the ethical thing is to let the mother/parents decide. If the parents do see anything wrong with an abortion (ie, that it's not a life and that it isn't killing) then they are not saying an abortion is the ethical thing (or the right thing) to do, but rather that it is permissible and that they have the right to choose. That's why it's framed as a pro-choice vs. pro-life debate.

FYI, in my mind "ethical" means (in a very simplified manner) "what is right" and "what should be encouraged," and my argument is based on this definition. People who disagree with this definition, however, may agrue another story--and that's part of why ethics is so difficult--people define the same thing differently (such as when life begins).

I think the more difficult argument is not whether abortion should be allowed or not--everyone is pretty strongly on one side or the other. A more difficult argument would be are we morally obligated to abort a fetus who will with certainty be born with such birth defects such that their lives will be entirely without joy, and extremeley painful and miserable (perhaps they're born blind, deaf, extreme arthritis and chronic pain with no possiblility of control through medication, etc.). It may not be a very realistic/probable question, but I think it is a more difficult question, at least for pro-lifers, because it tests your sense of compassion (which can argue the case either way) and possible willingness to break from your normal conception of right/wrong. Our job is to preserve life, yet also to prevent or minimize suffering. What is our responsibility here? While some of us would be willing to or want the chance to live, despite any hardships, others of us would not want to live through such misery. Yet, despite what others feel, it doesn't tell us what that unborn child or fetus feels.

Maybe a good question for a pro-choice advocate would be to ask what is appropriate when the husband and father wants the baby to be born, but the mother wants to abort it (maybe because the child will be bown with Down Syndrome, to connect this with the previous question). Does the mother have the last say since it is her body, or does the father have the right to see his child born?

I think questions like these--ones that are a bit more tuned to what people already believe, get a better sense of the throught process of an individual. Really, the more unfamiliar the question, the better (for the adcom!!!)

 

[Bacchus]

A popular one, or versions of it, going around is the economic stimulus packages. When I interviewed at VCOM one interviewer asked every interviewee the same question and I've seen the question being used at other schools. For me, it was when the first stimulus was proposed in September: "The government is proposing 700 billion dollars in economic stimulus. What do you feel the government should do when its also facing a quickly increasing baby boomer population that is swiftly consuming governmental healthcare resources?"

 

[Shawnpremed]

Wow, thanks for the responses everyone. I consider all your perspectives, but the main question was NOT intended to start a debate; Rather I wanted to know how to approach answering these question. But personally if someone was raped, or in unwanted teen pregnancies, I can imagine how not having an abortion can be a burden on the mom, dad, and the child.)

Having said that:
1.

Try answering the same question on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. How would you respond if the patient were a 17.5 year old with a painful terminal illness.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what IS the difference between the two? Is it the whether a physician is present at the moment?

2. Also, here's a question I've actually been asked at a Best Buy interview:
Have you ever thought about commiting a crime without actually doing it?

I thought this was more of an honesty question, but at that time, I was 18, and didn't know better so I said "No." I didn't get hired, and this response may/may not be a sole decider.

But in the case of being asked this in a med school interview, is honesty what they're looking for?
Because of course I've THOUGHT about just taking something from a store as a kid without paying for it, or wanted to 'kill' someone for getting on my nerves, without acting upon these intentions, thus showing composure and control.

Thoughts?

 

[Shawnpremed]

A popular one, or versions of it, going around is the economic stimulus packages. When I interviewed at VCOM one interviewer asked every interviewee the same question and I've seen the question being used at other schools. For me, it was when the first stimulus was proposed in September: "The government is proposing 700 billion dollars in economic stimulus. What do you feel the government should do when its also facing a quickly increasing baby boomer population that is swiftly consuming governmental healthcare resources?"

Honestly i wouldn't know where to begin lol

 

[Bacchus]

Shawn, the difference between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is for euthanasia the professional administers the means to cause death. In physician-assisted suicide the professional writes a prescription for a lethal dose of barbiturates but the patient takes them on his/her own accord. When looking at physician-assisted suicide, the best place to look is at Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. Its the safest and most well monitored act. Do not use the Netherlands as an example or model for PAS.

 

[dmblue]

Presenting both sides of an issue is the correct way to answer any ethics question. If you can't understand where the other side is coming from you will look like (and possibly be lol) an idiot. This is why you answer the MCAT essays with a counterargument.

It is much better to point out why you think the other arguments are weak to support your answer than to not acknowledge them at all.

I think that neutral standpoints, however, should be avoided.

 

[mvenus929]

I don't think it's so easy. There are number of ways to argue against this. First of all would be compassionate use of medicine--don't we, as physicians, have a responsibility to ease the pain of others? And what if their life itself is painful--do they have a right to terminate their own life with the comfort that modern medicine can provide? Do we as physicians (future physicians, really) have an obligation to care for this person, even if it goes against our moral framework?

On the other hand, we do take an oath to "do no harm." But where is more harm done--by abandoning the patient and denying care or by carrying out their wishes?

(FYI I'm not taking a particular stance on this issue--just presenting a feasible alternative argument)

PAS and euthanasia can sometimes be difficult things to discuss and draw a line between. For instance, for the people who are for PAS, what happens when someone is in such a position where they can't administer the drug themselves? Technically, asking someone else to do it is euthanasia and is, thus, illegal. But, it's following with the wishes of the patient.

Abortion is most definitely concerned with two people's lives--the main reason to terminate a pregnancy is it is undesired by one life (the mother). [...]

Also, I agree with an earlier poster that abortion is probably not ever the ethical thing to do. Nobody is ever pro-abortion--they are pro-choice. I don't think many would say killing/aborting a fetus is the ethical thing to do, but rather the ethical thing is to let the mother/parents decide. If the parents do see anything wrong with an abortion (ie, that it's not a life and that it isn't killing) then they are not saying an abortion is the ethical thing (or the right thing) to do, but rather that it is permissible and that they have the right to choose. That's why it's framed as a pro-choice vs. pro-life debate.

*Elective* abortion may, in your opinion, never be ethical to do. But, I think it depends on why the mother wants to do it in the first place. Certainly, having an abortion simply because you don't want to have a kid isn't ethical. After all, the mother is only really taking her feelings into account.

But, what if some prenatal exams showed the baby with some sort of extreme deformity, such as neural tube defect (Anencephaly, for instance)? The physician would certainly explain the implications of the defect to the mother, in which case she may decide to terminate the pregnancy. Is this ethical? Well, she's certainly looking out for more than one life; a child born with anencephaly won't live a good life, if they survive birth at all. Most die within a few days. Far better to terminate the pregnancy early, don't you think?

In your terms, is it right to allow these children to be born, even if their birth may threaten the mother's life? That would certainly be an ethical question, and something someone can surely make a sound argument that it's very ethical to end the pregnancy.

 

[Mattabet]

Presenting both sides of an issue is the correct way to answer any ethics question. If you can't understand where the other side is coming from you will look like (and possibly be lol) an idiot. This is why you answer the MCAT essays with a counterargument.

I had the same thought: finally, a semi-real world example of why the MCAT writing section is not 100% useless! It's a pretty good way to go about an argument. State where you are, state the opposing viewpoint, and state why your side is better.

To not acknowledge the opposing viewpoint in these sorts of discussions is tantamount to ignorance. You want to show both sides of the argument, and your logic in choosing the side you wind up on.

I disagree slightly though, I do think there are cases where remaining neutral is acceptable. But I wouldn't do it on more than one question so as not to appear wishy-washy.

For the record though, I got asked exactly two ethical dilemma questions over the course of three school interviews, both by the same interviewer (kind of a grizzled veteran physician... not sure if you can profile the type of adcom that tends to ask these), so don't worry about it too much.

 

[starfishprime]

Shawn, the difference between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is for euthanasia the professional administers the means to cause death.

No no no no no. They are political euphemisms, and no more. The end-result is the same (assuming consent), the involved parties are the same, and the act is the same.

Perhaps you should start differentiating between "abortion" and "physician-assisted embryocide." By your logic, one is unethical, and the other is not.

 

[mvenus929]

No no no no no. They are political euphemisms, and no more. The end-result is the same (assuming consent), the involved parties are the same, and the act is the same.

Perhaps you should start differentiating between "abortion" and "physician-assisted embryocide." By your logic, one is unethical, and the other is not.

Well, a physician administering a lethal drug is still illegal in all parts of this country. But, a physician prescribing a lethal drug and letting the patient take it is currently legal in either two or three states.

 

[Brent8927]

PAS and euthanasia can sometimes be difficult things to discuss and draw a line between. For instance, for the people who are for PAS, what happens when someone is in such a position where they can't administer the drug themselves? Technically, asking someone else to do it is euthanasia and is, thus, illegal. But, it's following with the wishes of the patient.

I agree that is a difficult situation, and it ups the stakes of the debate even more.

*Elective* abortion may, in your opinion, never be ethical to do. But, I think it depends on why the mother wants to do it in the first place. Certainly, having an abortion simply because you don't want to have a kid isn't ethical. After all, the mother is only really taking her feelings into account.

But, what if some prenatal exams showed the baby with some sort of extreme deformity, such as neural tube defect (Anencephaly, for instance)? The physician would certainly explain the implications of the defect to the mother, in which case she may decide to terminate the pregnancy. Is this ethical? Well, she's certainly looking out for more than one life; a child born with anencephaly won't live a good life, if they survive birth at all. Most die within a few days. Far better to terminate the pregnancy early, don't you think?

In your terms, is it right to allow these children to be born, even if their birth may threaten the mother's life? That would certainly be an ethical question, and something someone can surely make a sound argument that it's very ethical to end the pregnancy.

I like your questions--they add more to the debate. And I guess I should specify that I don't necessarily think an abortion is always wrong in the cases of rape, incest, and harm to the mother.

Anencephaly is pretty horrible--knowing that the child you were hoping for and looking forward to having isn't going to have any chance at consciousness and probably won't survive birth is incredibly difficult to deal with. And even if it does survive birth it won't survive much longer.

I would say in this case it's really up to what the parents wish. If it isn't a threat to the mother and she would feel better (perhaps she is against abortion) carrying it to term and letting nature take it's course (which is a matter of "when" and not "if" in this case) then I would support that. But if the parents feel an abortion is the appropriate step to take, I would also support that. I think whatever gives the best closure to the parents is the ideal way to go.

If they asked me for my opinion, in this case, I would probably recommend the abortion. It's incredibly hard to deal with carrying a baby for nine months and giving birth to it, only to watch it die, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

It's a tough situation because when the baby born it is still technically "alive" and has a face and (non-functioning) eyes, and it's easy to empathise with something with a face/eyes. But, if it has absolutely no potential to become a conscious human being, then I can't think of a reason to argue that in this case an abortion is wrong.

 

[Bacchus]

No no no no no. They are political euphemisms, and no more. The end-result is the same (assuming consent), the involved parties are the same, and the act is the same.

Perhaps you should start differentiating between "abortion" and "physician-assisted embryocide." By your logic, one is unethical, and the other is not.

Legislation writes them as two different terms. The Oregonian law on which we have precedent uses the term physician assisted suicide and does not equate the practice with euthanasia. They are different in my opinion. I don't agree with your analogy because a physician cannot provide a means to abortion without performing the operation.

 

[starfishprime]

Legislation writes them as two different terms. The Oregonian law on which we have precedent uses the term physician assisted suicide and does not equate the practice with euthanasia. They are different in my opinion. I don't agree with your analogy because a physician cannot provide a means to abortion without performing the operation.

Who gives a damn about 'legislation'? Prudent moral philosophy certainly doesn't. Didn't I flatly say that they're political euphemisms?

As for abortion, are RU not familiar with RU-486?


More broadly, consider the following algorithm:

1. Input: Terminally-ill patient, verified as terminally-ill, verified as mentally competent, etc., consents to life-ending, verified by witnesses, etc.
2. <black box>
3. Output: Terminally-ill patient is now deceased, having met his end in a humane and dignified manner according to his wishes.

Please explain to me how different <black box> steps can be anything but ethically equivalent?

 

[futuredoctor99]

Interviewers can usually tell when you are not being genuine--you should always state what you really believe and what your real thoughts/feelings are, otherwise the truth may come out. If it doesn't, it's pretty likely you still won't sound very sincere if you are just trying to tell the interviewer what they want to hear.

I definitely took different sides on issues that my interviewers may not have agreed with--but what they care most about (and they said this) is hearing how you think, rather than what you think.

Also, stating objective evidence is definitely a good idea, but it doesn't tell interviewers anything about you. In addition to knowing how you think, they want to know both what you think and what you feel. So I would encourage people to state both objective and subjective evidence.

That is the ideal thing to do but from experience I know that there are those that would readily hold your opinion against you. Often times, it means giving lower grades or closing doors to opportunities down the road.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

And I guess I should specify that I don't necessarily think an abortion is always wrong in the cases of rape, incest, and harm to the mother.

The rape exception is based upon faulty reasoning, IMO. If somebody rapes you, that does not give you the right to kill an innocent bystander. If the fetus were a person, abortion because of rape would be basically the same. The threat of death to the mother is another matter entirely, however, as killing the fetus, even if a person, becomes an ironic situation of self-defense.

Anencephaly is pretty horrible--knowing that the child you were hoping for and looking forward to having isn't going to have any chance at consciousness and probably won't survive birth is incredibly difficult to deal with. And even if it does survive birth it won't survive much longer.

I would say in this case it's really up to what the parents wish. If it isn't a threat to the mother and she would feel better (perhaps she is against abortion) carrying it to term and letting nature take it's course (which is a matter of "when" and not "if" in this case) then I would support that. But if the parents feel an abortion is the appropriate step to take, I would also support that. I think whatever gives the best closure to the parents is the ideal way to go.

If they asked me for my opinion, in this case, I would probably recommend the abortion. It's incredibly hard to deal with carrying a baby for nine months and giving birth to it, only to watch it die, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

It's a tough situation because when the baby born it is still technically "alive" and has a face and (non-functioning) eyes, and it's easy to empathise with something with a face/eyes. But, if it has absolutely no potential to become a conscious human being, then I can't think of a reason to argue that in this case an abortion is wrong.

Without ever having consciousness it's nothing but tissue with unique DNA. Personhood lies in the mind.

No no no no no. They are political euphemisms, and no more. The end-result is the same (assuming consent), the involved parties are the same, and the act is the same.

Perhaps you should start differentiating between "abortion" and "physician-assisted embryocide." By your logic, one is unethical, and the other is not.

No there's a definitive continuum on it. In most hospitals, it is perfectly acceptable to withdraw lifesaving care at the patient's informed request. My understanding is that's very common. This can be viewed as a very passive form of euthanasia by allowing nature to take its course. But to say it's the same as actively euthanizing them since the result is the same would be a bit of a stretch. One could argue that if they're in distress, active euthanasia or terminal sedation would be humane, as allowing them to die of dehydration or other natural processes would likely be less pleasant for them.

I would not recommend trying to argue that elective abortions are ethical. Whether or not they should be legal is one thing, but I don't think there is anybody out there that thinks killing a healthy fetus is a morally correct thing to do.

Morally neutral if a fetus is not actually a person. I'm "pro-choice," but it's not really about choice as the mother's desire for convenience would not outweigh a baby's right to life. But that would be irrelevant before personhood begins.

So it depends on how developed of a fetus we're talking about. In the 1st trimester I would never have a problem with it, as my understanding is the fetus does not even have sentience. Even the animals we eat have that. How can you define personhood without some discussion of the mind? The perception of pain on the part of the fetus is something that occurs within a relatively wide range of time in the late 2nd trimester (would be a good idea to cite studies for that, I'll have to look them up again) So I can understand how most reasonable people would consider late-term abortions unethical. Given the uncertainty I have seen on the actual time that pain perception is possible, the second half of the 2nd trimester would be questionable.

Forget abortion. Try answering the same question on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. How would you respond if the patient were a 17.5 year old with a painful terminal illness.

You're probably correct that those questions would be more likely than abortion-related ones. I'd imagine the abortion questions would take on the form of what you would do if you were against it and a patient asks for one.

For PAS, I would very cautiously say that patients who are terminal should be allowed to terminate their own lives given a demonstration of competence to make that decision and safeguards against abuses, as we have in Oregon. We would need to be especially vigilant in preserving palliative care by not always defaulting to strategies like terminal sedation and PAS. In fact, the latter probably should never be brought up by a doctor to a patient, but if the patient brings it up, the doctor should seriously consider their request and seek opinions from peers, especially psychiatrists. Patients who can offer informed consent should have their wishes granted, unless there is a very compelling reason to suspect deferred consent will occur, which would not be the case if the patient really is terminal.

I got this one: "Should we tax, or charge more for insurance premiums, the obese since their utilization of health care resources is greater than the non-obese?"

I would say no because a better alternative would be to tax unhealthy foods like saturated fat and simple carbs. This would encourage healthier choices while holding people accountable without discouraging them from having coverage and preventive care (assuming private healthcare as we have now).

We'd like people to make good choices and everybody must be held responsible for their choices, but if higher premiums mean more uninsured people then the costs to society in the long run are going to be greater given the lack of preventive care, unless we start allowing irresponsible people to die in ER lobbies.

If they are nice, they'll often pick from topics relating to your major. I'm a nutrition major, so I actually was asked something relating to obesity at multiple different interviews.

So if you're a philosophy major, I'd be afraid... I'd be very afraid.

I'd much rather talk about ethics than myself, and I'm not a philosophy major. I most fear the, "tell me about your family," questions. I think I'll strongly encourage them to go into an ethics question by mentioning how much I love to talk about ethics in the "tell me about yourself" opener...

I disagree that there is any way that an elective abortion can be ethical unless your code of ethics is solely focused on the individual and selfishness (e.g., Rand's objectivism).

If the fetus has no personhood and doesn't feel pain, then nobody's rights are violated by the abortion. Therefore, it would be unethical to disallow abortion in such cases.

Also, ethics is not something that can be taught (i.e., medical ethics courses are nothing short of subjective indoctrination).

Virtue cannot be taught, but ethics can. Somebody who is not virtuous in all ways can benefit from ethics as they can come to an understanding of why they must act morally and how to find the moral course of action without virtuous feelings to guide them.

Just because you can make an ethical argument for abortions does not mean that argument is sound. I never said that an argument couldn't be made, just that most people will reject it, and more importantly, be offended by it.

A pro-life person would, but not everybody is pro-life.

Also, for what it's worth, I was never asked any hypothetical 'ethical' questions like these in any interviews. They seem to be rare in my opinion because most interviewers realize how ridiculous they are. I would guess they only appear when the questions to be asked by the interviewer are dictated by a committee not present.

That's too bad. They would be ridiculous if they were based upon you stating something the interviewer agrees with, but I don't think that's usually the case. They're not the most common questions, but I wish they were. 🙂

 

[JJMrK]

The rape exception is based upon faulty reasoning, IMO. If somebody rapes you, that does not give you the right to kill an innocent bystander. If the fetus were a person, abortion because of rape would be basically the same. The threat of death to the mother is another matter entirely, however, as killing the fetus, even if a person, becomes an ironic situation of self-defense.



Without ever having consciousness it's nothing but tissue with unique DNA. Personhood lies in the mind.




No there's a definitive continuum on it. In most hospitals, it is perfectly acceptable to withdraw lifesaving care at the patient's informed request. My understanding is that's very common. This can be viewed as a very passive form of euthanasia by allowing nature to take its course. But to say it's the same as actively euthanizing them since the result is the same would be a bit of a stretch. One could argue that if they're in distress, active euthanasia or terminal sedation would be humane, as allowing them to die of dehydration or other natural processes would likely be less pleasant for them.



Morally neutral if a fetus is not actually a person. I’m “pro-choice,” but it’s not really about choice as the mother’s desire for convenience would not outweigh a baby’s right to life. But that would be irrelevant before personhood begins.

So it depends on how developed of a fetus we're talking about. In the 1st trimester I would never have a problem with it, as my understanding is the fetus does not even have sentience. Even the animals we eat have that. How can you define personhood without some discussion of the mind? The perception of pain on the part of the fetus is something that occurs within a relatively wide range of time in the late 2nd trimester (would be a good idea to cite studies for that, I’ll have to look them up again) So I can understand how most reasonable people would consider late-term abortions unethical. Given the uncertainty I have seen on the actual time that pain perception is possible, the second half of the 2nd trimester would be questionable.



You're probably correct that those questions would be more likely than abortion-related ones. I'd imagine the abortion questions would take on the form of what you would do if you were against it and a patient asks for one.

For PAS, I would very cautiously say that patients who are terminal should be allowed to terminate their own lives given a demonstration of competence to make that decision and safeguards against abuses, as we have in Oregon. We would need to be especially vigilant in preserving palliative care by not always defaulting to strategies like terminal sedation and PAS. In fact, the latter probably should never be brought up by a doctor to a patient, but if the patient brings it up, the doctor should seriously consider their request and seek opinions from peers, especially psychiatrists. Patients who can offer informed consent should have their wishes granted, unless there is a very compelling reason to suspect deferred consent will occur, which would not be the case if the patient really is terminal.



I would say no because a better alternative would be to tax unhealthy foods like saturated fat and simple carbs. This would encourage healthier choices while holding people accountable without discouraging them from having coverage and preventive care (assuming private healthcare as we have now).

We'd like people to make good choices and everybody must be held responsible for their choices, but if higher premiums mean more uninsured people then the costs to society in the long run are going to be greater given the lack of preventive care, unless we start allowing irresponsible people to die in ER lobbies.



I'd much rather talk about ethics than myself, and I'm not a philosophy major. I most fear the, "tell me about your family," questions. I think I'll strongly encourage them to go into an ethics question by mentioning how much I love to talk about ethics in the "tell me about yourself" opener...



If the fetus has no personhood and doesn't feel pain, then nobody's rights are violated by the abortion. Therefore, it would be unethical to disallow abortion in such cases.



Virtue cannot be taught, but ethics can. Somebody who is not virtuous in all ways can benefit from ethics as they can come to an understanding of why they must act morally and how to find the moral course of action without virtuous feelings to guide them.



A pro-life person would, but not everybody is pro-life.



That's too bad. They would be ridiculous if they were based upon you stating something the interviewer agrees with, but I don't think that's usually the case. They're not the most common questions, but I wish they were. 🙂

lol.

Good job.

 

[virusgirl]

The rape exception is based upon faulty reasoning, IMO. If somebody rapes you, that does not give you the right to kill an innocent bystander.

I don't actually disagree with this statement, but I am quoting you because I want to highlight that the argument for/against abortion in the case of rape or incest is more nuanced than we sometimes think.

Unfortunately, when a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong gets treated unfairly, regardless of the outcome. If the woman elects to have an abortion, then her fetus is not allowed to continue to grow into a human being. If you're pro-life, this seems horrendously unfair.

But on the other hand, if the woman does not have an abortion, she is confronted every single day for nine months with evidence of what happened to her. Having never been raped or pregnant, I can't even begin to imagine how excruciating it must be to go through that experience and then observe the development of my own pregnancy resulting from that trauma. It must be absolutely horrifying to actually feel evidence of what happened to you kicking and moving within your uterus.

So no matter what choice is made, to abort or not, someone's health is compromised -- either that of the fetus, or (possibly) the psychological health of the mother.

I am personally pro-life, but I feel that when people say "abortion is wrong because it's unfair to the fetus," they are neglecting to acknowledge the pregnancy resulting from rape is incredibly unfair to the mother. It's a crap situation no matter what choice is made, and it's a matter of deciding which option is less unfair, not which option is right.

 

[Bacchus]

Who gives a damn about 'legislation'? Prudent moral philosophy certainly doesn't. Didn't I flatly say that they're political euphemisms?

As for abortion, are RU not familiar with RU-486?


More broadly, consider the following algorithm:

1. Input: Terminally-ill patient, verified as terminally-ill, verified as mentally competent, etc., consents to life-ending, verified by witnesses, etc.
2. <black box>
3. Output: Terminally-ill patient is now deceased, having met his end in a humane and dignified manner according to his wishes.

Please explain to me how different <black box> steps can be anything but ethically equivalent?

Your blackbox has two scenarios:

1) A lethal dose of prescribed barbiturates administered by the patient
2) A physician actively bringing about death (probably through means of injection)

The first allows the patient to do it on his or her own terms how he or she wants to die. The prescription may never be filled, may be throw away, etc. The second puts the power in the physician's hands. Of course the patient can always request the termination of his or her request for euthanasia. I see them as different events and personally would not feel as much attachment in the first black box scenario compared to the second. I respect your opinion, but I'm not debating this anymore.

 

[MissIntrigued]

Legislation writes them as two different terms. The Oregonian law on which we have precedent uses the term physician assisted suicide and does not equate the practice with euthanasia. They are different in my opinion. I don't agree with your analogy because a physician cannot provide a means to abortion without performing the operation.

well that' not entirely true. There is an abortion pill available as we all know, which the patient can take on their own after being directed by the physician.

 

[Amemus]

I got this one: "Should we tax, or charge more for insurance premiums, the obese since their utilization of health care resources is greater than the non-obese?"

If they are nice, they'll often pick from topics relating to your major. I'm a nutrition major, so I actually was asked something relating to obesity at multiple different interviews.

So if you're a philosophy major, I'd be afraid... I'd be very afraid. 😎

Are you kidding? I'm a philosophy major precisely because I love talking about these sorts of questions. To spend an interview in philosophical investigation would be thoroughly enjoyable for me, particularly if the subject was medical ethics because questions of medical ethics are of obvious relevance to what I want to do and because questions of medical ethics are just so interesting. These questions wrap up all the themes of ethical theory together in such a complex way, as many previous posters have alluded to. I don't think this is something to stress over; just give the questions the serious thought they deserve and be able to deliver an answer you're satisfied with with sound justification. Your ability to reason is more important than your answers in this situation.

 

[binko]

I don't like it when people talk about ethics on the internet 😳

 

[Bacchus]

I don't like it when people talk about ethics on the internet 😳

Yeah it never ends too well.

 

[LizzyM]

well that' not entirely true. There is an abortion pill available as we all know, which the patient can take on their own after being directed by the physician.

Not entirely true because if the pill does not work as intended, an operative procedure is required.

 

[Bacchus]

well that' not entirely true. There is an abortion pill available as we all know, which the patient can take on their own after being directed by the physician.

I will say, I didn't think of the Plan B pill when I typed my response.

 

[D and D]

Plan B is NOT an abortion pill, it's considered a contraceptive. If already pregnant Plan B will not induce abortion. The abortion pill is RU-486.

 

[Bacchus]

Plan B is NOT an abortion pill, it's considered a contraceptive. If already pregnant Plan B will not induce abortion. The abortion pill is RU-486.

My bad.

 

[Brent8927]

I don't actually disagree with this statement, but I am quoting you because I want to highlight that the argument for/against abortion in the case of rape or incest is more nuanced than we sometimes think.

Unfortunately, when a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong gets treated unfairly, regardless of the outcome. If the woman elects to have an abortion, then her fetus is not allowed to continue to grow into a human being. If you're pro-life, this seems horrendously unfair.

But on the other hand, if the woman does not have an abortion, she is confronted every single day for nine months with evidence of what happened to her. Having never been raped or pregnant, I can't even begin to imagine how excruciating it must be to go through that experience and then observe the development of my own pregnancy resulting from that trauma. It must be absolutely horrifying to actually feel evidence of what happened to you kicking and moving within your uterus.

So no matter what choice is made, to abort or not, someone's health is compromised -- either that of the fetus, or (possibly) the psychological health of the mother.

I am personally pro-life, but I feel that when people say "abortion is wrong because it's unfair to the fetus," they are neglecting to acknowledge the pregnancy resulting from rape is incredibly unfair to the mother. It's a crap situation no matter what choice is made, and it's a matter of deciding which option is less unfair, not which option is right.

I agree--it's a terribly awful situation either way.

One would hope that the mother has the (superhuman) psychological strength to carry the baby to term, and either raise it or give it up for adoption, since that is the ideal ending in a situation like this, but life unfortunately doesn't always work the same as a Disney movie. I wish it did, but regardless, I will still do my best as a physician to keep people living as close to a happy Disney-life as possible.

 

[Brent8927]

I don't like it when people talk about ethics on the internet 😳

I think it's fun, as long as people are respectful of other's opinion, and are actually open to other's points of views (it isn't much of a learning experience if someone only recites their philosophical mantras and doesn't acknowledge they could be wrong).

But it can be hard to appear respectful on the internet, where we don't hear the tone of someone's voice, or see their facial expressions/body language.

But a "🙂" always helps. 🙂