so a doctor showed an act of compassion for me, which i mentioned in my personal statement. however, i'm wondering if i should keep it in there b/c they were technically not supposed to give me extra packs of trial medicine (since we couldnt pay for the medicine). should i keep it in there?
ethical ambiguities
- Thread starter eembzee
- Start date
- Joined
- May 19, 2010
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 3
That's not ethical ambiguity. That's just unethical.
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
It doesn't reflect poorly on you. As a patient, I don't think you're implicated in anything improper by taking drug samples. If anything, you might be asked about it in an interview. I doubt it'll impact you negatively.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 75
Aren't familiar with Kohlberg's stages of moral development, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
An ethical dilemma occurs when there are two legitimate claims of ethical behavior that are in conflict. In the OP's example, it is ethical to both 1) provide good care to patients, and 2) distribute samples as they were intended. Which claim wins out since they both can't happen at the same time? (Assuming the problem is constrained to the information and options given.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 75
But to answer the OP's question, I'm not sure of experiences with your own physician are the best PS fodder. If it plays into a bigger story, then use it as you see fit.
- Joined
- May 19, 2010
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 3
His stages of moral development are overly simplified, ignores many values, and ignores pretty much everything except the given present (if more doctors cheated the trials, the results would be inaccurate, the drug would not get approved, and no one in the future could benefit from the drug - this is actually what happened to delay the approval of the first reverse transcriptase inhibitor for HIV). It's one of the criticisms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development#Criticisms
Ethics in medicine are simple: follow the rules. If you dislike the rules, become a leader and get them changed.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 623
- Reaction score
- 7
Uh... Not really, at least not that clear-cut. I think you may have misinterpreted the OP, see below.
Wow. I think semantics is the problem here.
From reading the OP, I think you may have misunderstood the word trial. In the OP, it most likely meant free or sample and was not used to define medicine from a clinical trial or study, which from your post, sounds like how you interpreted it.
Back to the OP, this is actually quite common, where doctors keep giving the trial (sample, free) packs to patients because they cannot afford the medications, but I am sure this is regulated differently state by state. You didn't really do anything wrong and there may not even be an ethical/legal issue depending on the expectations/regulations in your state. However, if it doesn't add much to your PS, then it might be best to avoid anything potentially controversial.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,783
- Reaction score
- 584
Many, many physicians do this, and everyone knows about it. I doubt that your PS readers are going to give something like this a second thought.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
- Reaction score
- 4
Completely agree. The broader problem isn't an ethics issue, but that the topic itself might not be the best choice for a personal statement. Yes, there are people with compelling interactions with medicine as a patient, but using that as the focus of your PS opens a huge can of worms. You should have many more compelling reasons to go into medicine that now come from an almost-practitioner's standpoint, experiences you would have had to confirm your career choice *after* whatever event you're describing happened to spark your interest. If you don't, and just want to go into medicine because of an interaction you had as a patient, that raises red flags as those applicants have a higher chance of not really knowing what they're getting into (and ultimately drop out of med school). And maybe, probably, that doesn't describe you at all...but it makes the reader start to wonder if that IS the case and can work against you. Also, I'd be a little wary with the example you described unless it's couched in a very strong context...on it's own, a doctor slipping you some extra free meds doesn't seem like a life-changing event to me.
Of course, this all depends on your particular story. But I would definitely run your essay by your premed advisor first to make sure you're not going down a route in which your PS will hurt you more than it will help.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 75
That's not a moral position. That's legalism.
Sounds like someone is stuck at Stage Four! I'd recommend getting to at least Stage Five before starting med school, because honestly the "ethics of medicine" just become more and more ambiguous.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,390
- Reaction score
- 5,693
Kohlberg's stages are largely discredited and disregarded by those in the know, at least, according to the ethics professors I've talked to.
What ethical principles are violated here? Fidelity to the drug company. That's about all I can think of. The beneficence of the doctor toward the patient trumps the breach of fidelity with (semi)-employer. Furthermore, because we do not have all the info, we could examine the hypothetical of the doctor paying for the drugs himself (somewhat likely), which would then cause only good to the patient. So from even a utilitarian standpoint, this was a justifiable action, ethically (drugs for poor patient provide more good to patient than bad to the company).
But heck, what do I know?
What ethical principles are violated here? Fidelity to the drug company. That's about all I can think of. The beneficence of the doctor toward the patient trumps the breach of fidelity with (semi)-employer. Furthermore, because we do not have all the info, we could examine the hypothetical of the doctor paying for the drugs himself (somewhat likely), which would then cause only good to the patient. So from even a utilitarian standpoint, this was a justifiable action, ethically (drugs for poor patient provide more good to patient than bad to the company).
But heck, what do I know?
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 695
- Reaction score
- 4
Disagree. What could be more motivating than being sick, scared, helpless, and poor? The OP was ill and couldn't afford medicine to get better. Perhaps that's what sparked an interest to become a compassionate doctor who serves an unprivileged population, a doctor who understands when people can't afford health insurance or when medication is too expensive because he's lived through it himself.
Why isn't that a good enough answer to "why do you want to be a doctor"? I'd say it trumps things like "because I just love research" or "the body fascinates me". IMO, it's as good an answer as any other and an even better answer than most others have.
