Got ethics interview questions??? Wanna share?

[Julietcf14]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I have been looking for posible medical ethics questions that I might be asked in an upcoming interview and so far I am having little luck. I was hoping people could share either ethics questions they have been asked on interviews or just ones you have come up with. Thanks in advance!

 

[Thewrongstuff]

If abortion was enacted illegal in your state, no matter the circumnstances, and a pregnant teenager came to your pediatric office asking for an abortion, telling you she had been raped, would you do it if you had the proper medicine etc...?

Heres a real one my mom was asked:

If you saw a student cheating on a medical exam, and they asked you not to tell anybody, what would you do?

 

[fourchambered]

Some sample ethics questions:

• • Say you're a practicing pediatrician and a mom brings in her little boy who's about six and is very sick. Just after you get them situated in an exam room, an administrator comes to you and says that they are illegal immigrants, have no insurance, your clinic has met its quota of medicaid and medicare patients for the month and you can't afford to treat the boy. What do you do
  • If a mother brings in her 12 year old son and says he is very ill and needs a note to excuse him from school for the next few days, but when you examine him there is nothing wrong, what would you do?
  • What are your thoughts on genetic engineering?
  • If we had the ability to let people know in advance that they had a disposition to Alzheimer's, would that be beneficial? Would you promote it?
  • I hear there is a brothel in your home town, or at least there used to be. Would you have a problem treating the women there?
  • Would you prescribe the birth control pill to a 14 yr old who asked for it? Why?
  • What would I do if a mom refused to give her 11 year old daughter HPV vaccines because she didn't want to encourage sexual promiscuity.
  • Who gets a heart transplant of a group of equally deserving people? How do you arrive at this decision?
  • Two people come in to the ER, same exact conditions and both are in a state of emergency. One is a banker and has insurance, one is a homeless man. The hospital administrator calls you and says they need to start thinking about finances, and tells you, since you only have one cath lab to deal with these heart attack patients, to admit the banker and send the homeless man elsewhere. Who do you admit?
  • A patient with a common serious but relatively time-tested successful treatment plan wants to be disconnected from her ventilator before treatment is initiated. She is a nurse, and thus understands the implications of her request. Do you grant her wish or refuse, knowing that she will probably be fine with treatment but die without it?
  • Who would I give a liver to, the alcoholic on welfare with 2 young kids or the successful businessman who is active and involved in improving social concerns of the community? Why?

The above were taken from a school notorious for ethics questions. Browse for more here:

http://share.studentdoctor.net/interview/process_read.asp?school=9

Also, this website is really useful in giving you a firm ground in answering ethics questions. If you click on "Bioethics Topics" and browse through each category, you will see that there are specific cases with suggested solutions:

http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/

 

[dontwakeme]

Those questions aren't particularly difficult to answer. As a physician, you treat people. Your religious/moral beliefs shouldn't influence your decisions as a doctor.

That would be my answer to practically every question on that list.

 

[Encrypted]

Those questions aren't particularly difficult to answer. As a physician, you treat people. Your religious/moral beliefs shouldn't influence your decisions as a doctor.

That would be my answer to practically every question on that list.

As a physician, you do have a duty to treat the patient, but as an autonomous human being, we all have a right to choose what we want to do based on our moral standards whether they are religious or not. If you can't treat a patient for whatever reason, the patient has a right to go to another doctor.

 

[swim2006]

I was asked about physicain assisted suicide.

 

[TigerSoup]

This one's not too dramatic, but I've seen it asked. Drug company invites you to a free dinner at the best restaurant in town, where there will be a speaker presenting information about their newest drug related to your field. What do you do?

 

[dd128]

It's pretty tough to prepare for individual questions, you would probably be preparing for years. I know other people have gotten some tough questions, but I have really had very few so it may be kind of hit or miss. Just do your best to brush up on some of the big issues, some have already been mentioned, assisted suicide, abortion, definitely u.s. healthcare issues, genetic testing, etc. Interviewers are aware that we are not going to give any groundbreaking answers to their questions, but just see that we have a moderate amount of information on the subjects and can keep up a coherent conversation.

Sometimes they throw out really random questions too so get ready for that. My last interview I got asked how I would make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich 😛

 

[whateva07]

If abortion was enacted illegal in your state, no matter the circumnstances, and a pregnant teenager came to your pediatric office asking for an abortion, telling you she had been raped, would you do it if you had the proper medicine etc...?

Heres a real one my mom was asked:

If you saw a student cheating on a medical exam, and they asked you not to tell anybody, what would you do?

what did your mom say to that one

 

[shevie]

Those questions aren't particularly difficult to answer. As a physician, you treat people. Your religious/moral beliefs shouldn't influence your decisions as a doctor.

That would be my answer to practically every question on that list.

i agree. these questions dont seem all that difficult, if you just answer them logically.

 

[smeagol]

Those questions aren't particularly difficult to answer. As a physician, you treat people. Your religious/moral beliefs shouldn't influence your decisions as a doctor.

That would be my answer to practically every question on that list.

Hehe that's a very short answer =P

But are you implying that you have no preference between treating a homeless man and a banker with insurance given that you can only choose one? That's interesting.

 

[fourchambered]

Those questions aren't particularly difficult to answer. As a physician, you treat people. Your religious/moral beliefs shouldn't influence your decisions as a doctor.

That would be my answer to practically every question on that list.

I think you're missing the point entirely. Ethical dilemmas inevitably come up when working as a doctor. It's essential to any medical education. That's why hospitals have ethics committees and medical schools have entire departments that work with these issues. Medicine isn't entirely objective and there will always be gray areas. I would suggest reasoning through any questions you encounter in interviews to show that you're at least aware of this.

 

[armybound]

there are 2 people who need a liver. one of them is poor but high on the list. the other one is your employer's rich relative and your employer tells you to give this relative the liver or you're fired. what do you do?

 

[Rotinaj]

Say you're a practicing pediatrician and a mom brings in her little boy who's about six and is very sick. Just after you get them situated in an exam room, an administrator comes to you and says that they are illegal immigrants, have no insurance, your clinic has met its quota of medicaid and medicare patients for the month and you can't afford to treat the boy. What do you do?

I can't treat them. It would be unfair of me to neglect the patients that are currently in my care, as well as set a precedent that could very well lead to the hospital going out of business. If I give them free care, then I should be obligated to give everyone free care. If I were to treat them outside of the hospital, I could risk my license and wouldn't be able to help anyone else for the rest of my life. The best I can do is to refer them to a free clinic.

If a mother brings in her 12 year old son and says he is very ill and needs a note to excuse him from school for the next few days, but when you examine him there is nothing wrong, what would you do?

I can only write a note for the day he recieved his examination. Anything more would be a lie.

What are your thoughts on genetic engineering?

I believe that it would be wonderful to be able to remove potentially harmful genetic maladies from our children, possibly eliminating genetic conditions such as Down's syndrome and other genetic predispositions to diabetes, alzheimers, obesity, alcoholism, etc... There would have to be some limitations obviously, but I don't see the harm in choosing eye or hair color or making sure they'll be normal height. I see problems arising from trying to alter their children beyond what is considered within normal parameters of society like trying to make your son the tallest man on earth or give someone an extra set of arms. Someone who is genetically engineered should be inconspicuous in society.

If we had the ability to let people know in advance that they had a disposition to Alzheimer's, would that be beneficial? Would you promote it?

Of course I'd promote it. There are all kinds of preventative treatments such as diet and lifestyle changes that can reduce your risk of actually developing the disease. Why shouldn't we warn people of what they should be concerned about?

I hear there is a brothel in your home town, or at least there used to be. Would you have a problem treating the women there?

Even if I don't approve of someone's lifestyle, it doesn't mean I can't do my job.

Would you prescribe the birth control pill to a 14 yr old who asked for it? Why?

Not with parental consent. If I lose my license, then I can't help anyone. I would advise her to talk with her parents about the issue, and if they came to me requesting it, I'd be happy to prescribe it.

What would I do if a mom refused to give her 11 year old daughter HPV vaccines because she didn't want to encourage sexual promiscuity.

I would tell her that there are plenty of other STD's and factors such as pregnancy that are equally as effective at deterring promiscuity. I would also tell her that I respect her rights as a parent, but that medically it would be a mistake for her daughter to not be innoculated. I would also suggest she confirm this with any other physician because they would agree that innoculation is the proper course of action as HPV leads to cervical cancer. To gamble that HPV is a deterrent is gambling with her daughter's life.

Who gets a heart transplant of a group of equally deserving people? How do you arrive at this decision?

There are so many factors to consider; the most important of which is who will benefit the most from it? A 20 year old gains precedent over a 70 year old because the 20 year old will most likely live longer with the heart, while also the 70 year old has had a long life. A drug user obviously has damaged their body and are a less likely candidate. Someone with an illness that will compromise their transplant or their longevity is probably out too. Whoever can live the longest and gain the most gets the heart. If there are two truly equal candidates, then you flip a coin and save someone.

Two people come in to the ER, same exact conditions and both are in a state of emergency. One is a banker and has insurance, one is a homeless man. The hospital administrator calls you and says they need to start thinking about finances, and tells you, since you only have one cath lab to deal with these heart attack patients, to admit the banker and send the homeless man elsewhere. Who do you admit?

It would be completely illogical to not treat the banker in favor of the homeless man. The banker can pay, which in turn keeps the hospital in operation and treating patients. Regardless of their professions, not treating the banker would be an equal loss of life and also a hit to the hospital's income which can jeopardize their ability to function. The fact that the banker contributes to society while the homeless man takes from society does not effect the decision. I would not treat a priest over a plumber if both could pay.


A patient with a common serious but relatively time-tested successful treatment plan wants to be disconnected from her ventilator before treatment is initiated. She is a nurse, and thus understands the implications of her request. Do you grant her wish or refuse, knowing that she will probably be fine with treatment but die without it?

If she is of sound mind and wants to die, then I must let her. I would try to rationalize with her that we can probably save her life, but if she still refuses to accept treatment then I have to honor her wishes.

Who would I give a liver to, the alcoholic on welfare with 2 young kids or the successful businessman who is active and involved in improving social concerns of the community? Why?


One of the factors in determining organ recipients is drug abuse. Alcoholism in itself makes the father on welfare a poor candidate because he has not completed rehab and will likely destroy the next liver he recieves. The businessman on the other hand has no stated drub abuse complications, and therefore should recieve the liver.

 

[Rotinaj]

there are 2 people who need a liver. one of them is poor but high on the list. the other one is your employer's rich relative and your employer tells you to give this relative the liver or you're fired. what do you do?

Report it to an ethics committee, and go by the list.

 

[spicedmanna]

Not exactly an ethics type interview question, but related:

Medical marijuana scenario. An end-stage cancer patient comes to your office c/o symptoms not relieved by conventional meds. You are located in California, or another state, where it is legal to prescribe medical marijuana, which is indicated for the relief of your pt's symptoms. While it is legal for those purposes in your state, you also know that some physicians in your state have been wisked away by the Feds for prescribing it. What would you do?

 

[shevie]

there are 2 people who need a liver. one of them is poor but high on the list. the other one is your employer's rich relative and your employer tells you to give this relative the liver or you're fired. what do you do?

give the liver to whoever is higher on the UNOS list. If its the rich person b/c they paid a different transplant surgeon off, so be it. And if its the poor guy b/c the rich guy is an alcoholic so he screwed himself, so be it. if i get fired, im sure ill have a pretty good explanation as to why i got fired on a job interview. Medicines not all abt the $. So ill be out of work for a month. thats why i have a husband going into a more financially lucrative job hehe. (jk thats not why i married him)

You have to be able to look at things objectively to be a good dr.

NOT as an employee
NOT as a religious person

take things at face value, evaluate, treat accordingly. end of story.

 

[novastorm]

Two people come in to the ER, same exact conditions and both are in a state of emergency. One is a banker and has insurance, one is a homeless man. The hospital administrator calls you and says they need to start thinking about finances, and tells you, since you only have one cath lab to deal with these heart attack patients, to admit the banker and send the homeless man elsewhere. Who do you admit?

Really stupid question, you tell the Hospital Administrator to kiss your ass and whoever gets admitted first goes to cath, then the other dies on transfer...

 

[shevie]

Say you're a practicing pediatrician and a mom brings in her little boy who's about six and is very sick. Just after you get them situated in an exam room, an administrator comes to you and says that they are illegal immigrants, have no insurance, your clinic has met its quota of medicaid and medicare patients for the month and you can't afford to treat the boy. What do you do
treat them and if its a financial issue, pay for it myself. What are we talking, a few hundred bucks?
If a mother brings in her 12 year old son and says he is very ill and needs a note to excuse him from school for the next few days, but when you examine him there is nothing wrong, what would you do?
Give him a freakin note, effective for 24 hrs. Same thing id do if an ADULT came in, saying he was sick, because he wanted to get out of work. If the mom wants another “excuse” note, she can come back tmrw, complaining of bogus symptoms and get him examined again for a new note.
In my note I wouldn’t say he has xy z and was prescribed abc. That violates pt confidentiality anyway, and its none of the schools business. It would simply say Johnny came into clinic today for __ symptoms. I examined him. Please excuse his subsequent tardiness/absence from school.
That’s not a lie.
Its not like shes asking me to sign a vaccination form but not vaccinate her son b/c shes “morally” opposed to vaccines.
What are your thoughts on genetic engineering?
Short answer: lots of potential, needs to be used w/ caution. Can help eliminate devastating genetic dieases, but there need to be limitations imposed on its uses. Long answer: its like a ½ hr debate.
If we had the ability to let people know in advance that they had a disposition to Alzheimer's, would that be beneficial? Would you promote it?
Of course! If the person specifically tells you they DON’T want to know, then no reason to ruin their “happiness.” Its not like its HIV and they can go around infecting other ppl unknowingly. But if they want to know, what is the harm? Maybe they will be able to plan their life accordingly, give themselves “time,” etc.
I hear there is a brothel in your home town, or at least there used to be. Would you have a problem treating the women there?
Absolutely not. And if you DO have a problem with it, youre probably either too pompous, or too immature, to be going to med school. Not my place to judge. They may be stuipid, immoral, and religiously I might have an opposition to what they do. But that’s not my place as a doctor. You just treat them objectively like all other patients. If I start questioning the morality of every patient that walks thru the door, every patient whose way of life differs from what I think is correct based on my religion (which for me, is what forms my moral values), id be out of a job.
There are gay people in my home town. Should I not treat them either b/c Im Jewish and it says in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination? Um, no, i just think I shouldn’t become gay, because its abominable. Youre life, your choice. And I just think I shouldn’t become a prostitute either. That’s not a reason not to treat a pt.
Would you prescribe the birth control pill to a 14 yr old who asked for it? Why?
Only with parental consent. I might have “religious” objections to 14 yr olds having sex (I do), but that’s not my business. My business is to make sure my patients are safe and healthy…but if theyre minors, i need to make sure their parents are on the same page as them, legally speaking. What shes gonna do (go have sex) is totally wrong. But that’s not my business.
What would I do if a mom refused to give her 11 year old daughter HPV vaccines because she didn't want to encourage sexual promiscuity.
I feel this is something that has to be evaluated on a case to case basis. If her daughter is sexually active, id sit down with her and have a frank discussion, explaining with sensitivity that I too think what kids do these days is wrong, and I certainly am not one to encourage premarital sex, but do you really want to “punish” your daughters wrong activities with a terrible disease that can lead to cancer left untreated?
If the kid admits she isn’t sexually active, I wouldn’t push it (didn’t they just enact a law in some state that all kids need to get this vaccine?? As an 11 year old, I PERSONALLY woulda been really upset about being forced to be vaccinated being that I knew at age 11 that id wait till marriage to have sex).
Who gets a heart transplant of a group of equally deserving people? How do you arrive at this decision?
Whoever’s higher on the UNOS list. Were not G-d, but this is why there are actuaries and biostatisticians out there – to objectively analyze and evaluate based on multiple factors, who has the greatest “life expectancy” with this new heart, and thus, who will “benefit fore.” But as the transplant surgeon, its not my choice. I do as im told.
I don’t arrive at this decision. Some committee in virgina (I think) does.
Two people come in to the ER, same exact conditions and both are in a state of emergency. One is a banker and has insurance, one is a homeless man. The hospital administrator calls you and says they need to start thinking about finances, and tells you, since you only have one cath lab to deal with these heart attack patients, to admit the banker and send the homeless man elsewhere. Who do you admit?
Banker guy, id admit either way. Homeless guy, depends on a) is he stable or not (in this case it says hes not) b) is this a public hospital or not. If it’s a public hospital what the hospital administrator is telling me to do, given that it’s a state of emergency, is illegal, and I wouldn’t listen, and id tell him/her that youre wrong, and im the treating physician, bite me. Im pretty sure (but im not a lawyer so don’t quote me on this), that if it IS an emergency, even a private hospital is legally obligated now to stabilize him before turfing him. If the homeless guy was stable, then id listen and id send him elsewhere. Either way, whoever was admitted first gets sent up to cath first. do your best to stabilize guy 2 in the meantime, or if itll be fater, send him elseswhere. if the other one dies in the mean time, um, unfortunately thats luck of hte draw in a hospital w/ two MI pts admitted simoultaneously and one cath lab.
A patient with a common serious but relatively time-tested successful treatment plan wants to be disconnected from her ventilator before treatment is initiated. She is a nurse, and thus understands the implications of her request. Do you grant her wish or refuse, knowing that she will probably be fine with treatment but die without it?
Get a psych eval, ask her if she wants to talk to a Rabbi or Priest, and if this is her decision, shes obviously educated, its an informed one, and its not my life, its hers.
Who would I give a liver to, the alcoholic on welfare with 2 young kids or the successful businessman who is active and involved in improving social concerns of the community? Why?
Again, whoevers higher on the unos list. Highly doubt the alcoholic would make it very far on the list so there you go. Sad for the 2 young kids and all, but im not the one making the decision, im just following orders.

 

[Rotinaj]

Two people come in to the ER, same exact conditions and both are in a state of emergency. One is a banker and has insurance, one is a homeless man. The hospital administrator calls you and says they need to start thinking about finances, and tells you, since you only have one cath lab to deal with these heart attack patients, to admit the banker and send the homeless man elsewhere. Who do you admit?

Really stupid question, you tell the Hospital Administrator to kiss your ass and whoever gets admitted first goes to cath, then the other dies on transfer...

I think the questions is more along the lines of: if they come in at the exact same time, same conditions, who do you take to the cath lab knowing that one cannot pay and one has to die.

 

[bigDee]

Some sample ethics questions:

• • Say you're a practicing pediatrician and a mom brings in her little boy who's about six and is very sick. Just after you get them situated in an exam room, an administrator comes to you and says that they are illegal immigrants, have no insurance, your clinic has met its quota of medicaid and medicare patients for the month and you can't afford to treat the boy. What do you do

• • 
    I would not treat them. If there are other patients who I can take care of instead of the illegal immigrants then I would treat the former because they are contributing to society and will contribute to the hospital financially. Contributing to the hospital financially means that future patients may receive better care than if the hospital didn't have the proper tools because of a lack of money. The illegal immigrants would not receive care because they cannot pay for their treatment and as such will hurt the hospital.
    
    However, I would have to consider the fact that they may just be one unlucky family. I cannot judge them. I don't know anything about them. Maybe they coming to the US illegally is the only way they could provide a decent life for their family. They may have a very good work ethic and are contributing to society in every way they can. They may need health care even more so than the normal family but because of where they happened to be born, they won't receive medical treatment. I think this is a hard thing to accept, but I still wouldn't give them treatment if it would hurt the hospital.
    
    Edit: It really depends on the extent of how hurt the hospital will be. If it would be marginally so, then yes I would treat them.
    
    

    [*]If a mother brings in her 12 year old son and says he is very ill and needs a note to excuse him from school for the next few days, but when you examine him there is nothing wrong, what would you do?

    I would not write him an excuse to miss school for the next few days because there's simply no reason to. I would counsel both the parent and the son about the consequences of lying about something like this. It takes a way time from other patients that will need care. Wasting time like this may hurt other patients to some extent.
    
    

    [*]What are your thoughts on genetic engineering?

    When a couple has kids who may be slightly odd in some ways but relatively normal, they claim to love their kids more than they could ever love anyone. I believe this is true. If a kid is genetically engineered to have a perfect nose and jaw bone, what would be the point? If they would have loved the kid with the flaws he'd have normally, then why does he need to be any different. It's like if you are walking in the mall with your kid and you see a near perfect kid of another parent and think, why can't my kid look like him?
    
    Also, how do you know a kid would even wants to be so aesthetically perfect? What if he liked the fact that his nose was big because it gave him a sense of uniqueness? How could you possibly know what your kid wants?
    
    But then again, what if a kid would instead grow up resenting his parents for not genetically engineering his face to be more attractive than he would be naturally? Some kids have really bad self esteem issues because they think they are ugly. Wouldn't they want their parents to give them a prettier face? A parent may consider the fact that they will love their kid no matter how they look, so there is no need to change them. But maybe its not about how much the parent loves them, maybe its about giving the kid the opportunity to live a happy life, where as otherwise the kid may grow up to be embarrassed of himself and disappointed in his parents for not making the "right" choice.
    
    If I had the choice, I would not genetically alter my kid unless he would be at a significant disadvantage or not relatively normal compared to other people.
    
    And of course, I agree to get rid of all diseases by the way of genetics.
    
    

    [*]If we had the ability to let people know in advance that they had a disposition to Alzheimer's, would that be beneficial? Would you promote it?

    Yes.
    
    

    [*]I hear there is a brothel in your home town, or at least there used to be. Would you have a problem treating the women there?

    No.
    
    

    [*]Would you prescribe the birth control pill to a 14 yr old who asked for it? Why?

    If the parent's consent was given, I would.
    
    

    [*]What would I do if a mom refused to give her 11 year old daughter HPV vaccines because she didn't want to encourage sexual promiscuity.

    I don't know what this is.
    
    

    [*]Who gets a heart transplant of a group of equally deserving people? How do you arrive at this decision?

    A coin toss. Although I don't believe two people can truly be equally deserving of a heart transplant in most situations. The problem is, it is hard to find out who actually does deserve it more than the other person. I'd consider factors such as age, contribution to society, and family status to see who would be more deserving. But if they all were equally deserving then there is nothing to debate, it's a simple coin toss, or maybe I'd make a decision on who I liked more.( only if they are all equally deserving, which is nearly impossible)
    
    

    [*]Two people come in to the ER, same exact conditions and both are in a state of emergency. One is a banker and has insurance, one is a homeless man. The hospital administrator calls you and says they need to start thinking about finances, and tells you, since you only have one cath lab to deal with these heart attack patients, to admit the banker and send the homeless man elsewhere. Who do you admit?

    I admit the banker because either way, one of the two will be saved and the other will be hurt. It makes more sense to go for the banker because he can contribute to the hospital. I assume though that "same exact conditions" means they have the same current condition and over all health, so I couldn't decide based on who was in more trouble.
    I probably would consider age as a factor too if they varied greatly.
    
    

    [*]A patient with a common serious but relatively time-tested successful treatment plan wants to be disconnected from her ventilator before treatment is initiated. She is a nurse, and thus understands the implications of her request. Do you grant her wish or refuse, knowing that she will probably be fine with treatment but die without it?

    I don't really understand this question but I think it's asking if I'd let someone end their own life.
    
    I would tell her the consequences of ending her life by reminding her of how selfish it may be to her family and friends who would miss her. I'd tell her that she may still have a chance to live a normal life (if that's an option here). Then after all that, I'd let her do it because she should not have to live in misery if it was her opinion that she was suffering unless she ended her life.
    
    

    [*]Who would I give a liver to, the alcoholic on welfare with 2 young kids or the successful businessman who is active and involved in improving social concerns of the community? Why?

The two kids may lose a parent, but the parent does not deserve it as much because he is an alcoholic. The successful businessman would have the liver.

 

[KeyzerSoze]

Say you're a practicing pediatrician and a mom brings in her little boy who's about six and is very sick. Just after you get them situated in an exam room, an administrator comes to you and says that they are illegal immigrants, have no insurance, your clinic has met its quota of medicaid and medicare patients for the month and you can't afford to treat the boy. What do you do?

I can't treat them. It would be unfair of me to neglect the patients that are currently in my care, as well as set a precedent that could very well lead to the hospital going out of business. If I give them free care, then I should be obligated to give everyone free care. If I were to treat them outside of the hospital, I could risk my license and wouldn't be able to help anyone else for the rest of my life. The best I can do is to refer them to a free clinic.

Why would treating a patient outside of the hospital endanger your license?

 

[emttim]

Say you're a practicing pediatrician and a mom brings in her little boy who's about six and is very sick. Just after you get them situated in an exam room, an administrator comes to you and says that they are illegal immigrants, have no insurance, your clinic has met its quota of medicaid and medicare patients for the month and you can't afford to treat the boy. What do you do?

I don't possibly see how you couldn't afford to treat one person. I'd treat the boy. He's very sick and requires treatment. If I don't do it, then they'll probably just go to the ER and stiff the ER for the visit, so I'd rather be out a hundred bucks than the ER being out a thousand. Plus it would potentially free up a bed at the ER that could go to someone else, and if I had to shell out the money myself, then cry me a river if I have to lose a hundred bucks considering I'll be making six figures.

If a mother brings in her 12 year old son and says he is very ill and needs a note to excuse him from school for the next few days, but when you examine him there is nothing wrong, what would you do?

I'd ask the mother to explain what she means by "very ill". Obviously, she's FOS, so I would not write the note. I would write a note stating I saw him today for X symptoms and that he could be excused from school for that specific day, but as it is, that's being generous so that'd be all I would do.

What are your thoughts on genetic engineering?

I could write a thesis paper on this so I would simply say that it has potential but would need regulations and a neutral governing body to monitor it so it didn't get out of control.

If we had the ability to let people know in advance that they had a disposition to Alzheimer's, would that be beneficial? Would you promote it?

Sure. If the patient didn't want to know, of course I wouldn't tell him, but why not have advance warning? I'd think it'd be very beneficial since I'm sure there's changes in diet and whatnot that could help counteract a predisposition to Alzheimer's. In fact, if I recall correctly, I think eating food that has fatty 3 acids (such as salmon) reduces your risk of some illnesses, although I'm not sure if Alzheimer's is one of them.

I hear there is a brothel in your home town, or at least there used to be. Would you have a problem treating the women there?

No. What they do with their life is their own business, and consequently, is not my business.

Would you prescribe the birth control pill to a 14 yr old who asked for it? Why?

Only with parental consent. Why? Because if it's legal to prescribe it due to parental consent, I can either give the child the birth control, or the child can get pregnant and then have her life ruined, the baby's life ruined through not being taken care of, or both. I shouldn't have to say which one is the lesser of two evils.

What would I do if a mom refused to give her 11 year old daughter HPV vaccines because she didn't want to encourage sexual promiscuity.

I would tell her that is an extremely flawed logic and that not being HPV vaccinated will not prevent her daughter from being sexual promiscuous, but instead, will predispose her to a very serious disease. I'd try to convince her (diplomatically) that her viewpoint is ignorant as hell and that the daughter should get the vaccination. If she still refused, then I would check the parameters of child abuse defined by the state I practiced in to see if that could potentially be a case of it. If so, I'd report it, if not, then I would do nothing since at that point I can't.

I'm surprised no one mentioned this being possible child abuse either. Even as an EMT, we're told to be on the lookout for that...child abuse isn't just physically beating the kid you know, it can be any number of things, including denying the child vaccinations against diseases that could kill him/her or greatly decrease their quality of life when any reasonable person would want that vaccination.

Two people come in to the ER, same exact conditions and both are in a state of emergency. One is a banker and has insurance, one is a homeless man. The hospital administrator calls you and says they need to start thinking about finances, and tells you, since you only have one cath lab to deal with these heart attack patients, to admit the banker and send the homeless man elsewhere. Who do you admit?

Depends on who is more stable and had the better chance of the cath lab saving his life. If the banker has a better outlook, then he gets the cath lab. If the homeless guy has a better outlook, then he gets the cath lab. If you ever got sued or went before an ethics committee and told them you treated the banker because he had money despite a poorer outlook, good luck with that...I'd imagine you'd get nailed to the wall for making the decision based on money and not on patient care.

A patient with a common serious but relatively time-tested successful treatment plan wants to be disconnected from her ventilator before treatment is initiated. She is a nurse, and thus understands the implications of her request. Do you grant her wish or refuse, knowing that she will probably be fine with treatment but die without it?

If she's A&Ox4, then she can refuse or accept any medical treatment she wants. I'd make sure to explain to her that she could potentially live a very normal life with treatment, and if she still didn't want it, then I'd grant her wish. It's her choice; not mine.

Who would I give a liver to, the alcoholic on welfare with 2 young kids or the successful businessman who is active and involved in improving social concerns of the community? Why?

The businessman. I don't even need to know he's active and involved in the community. Simply the fact he's not an alcoholic means he's a better candidate, therefore, he gets the liver.

 

[MelnaisLacis]

There is a train running full speed on the tracks towards little Billy who is stuck on the tracks. Fat Albert is on a cliff overlooking the tracks and his mass is such to stop the train entirely before it will hit Billy, but at the expense of Fat Albert's life. You are standing behind Fat Albert and can push him over the cliff. Is it ok to sacrifice Fat Albert to save Billy?

What if it is not just Billy, but there is also an entire bus full of the Hawaiian Tropic Swimsuit Models (ala dumb and dumber) that has stalled on the tracks. What would you do??????

 

[bigDee]

There is a train running full speed on the tracks towards little Billy who is stuck on the tracks. Fat Albert is on a cliff overlooking the tracks and his mass is such to stop the train entirely before it will hit Billy, but at the expense of Fat Albert's life. You are standing behind Fat Albert and can push him over the cliff. Is it ok to sacrifice Fat Albert to save Billy?

What if it is not just Billy, but there is also an entire bus full of the Hawaiian Tropic Swimsuit Models (ala dumb and dumber) that has stalled on the tracks. What would you do??????

I wouldn't do anything.

 

[MelnaisLacis]

you wouldn't sacrifice one person to save many?

 

[ladyluck3]

you wouldn't sacrifice one person to save many?

this isnt even a medical issue; this is a god issue, and since i'm not god i wouldn't play dice with the universe.

 

[ghostfoot]

Those questions aren't particularly difficult to answer. As a physician, you treat people. Your religious/moral beliefs shouldn't influence your decisions as a doctor.

That would be my answer to practically every question on that list.

Ay! But you didn't provide any answer. 🙄

 

[Rotinaj]

Why would treating a patient outside of the hospital endanger your license?

I don't know all the laws, but I assume that if you practice under a hospital's license and then you go out on the street and start diagnosing, if you make a mistake on the street then you could be subject to some harsh repercussions including reprimands from an ethics committee and lawsuits.

And to all the people saying, "It's just one kid, of course I'd treat him, even if it was out of my own pocket." I wonder how many times they'll have to do that before they learn that there's a whole lot of people in that situation. In my volunteer shifts alone I've heard nurses talk about people who get turned away after being stabilized because they can't pay for further treatment. If you guys were on duty as a physician that night would you cover their expenses too? The question involves the issue of precedent as well.

It's difficult to be objective, especially when someone is looking at you and you have to put yourself in their position. Imagine what it's going to really be like when you have to explain to one of your patients that the hospital can't give them a procedure because they don't have the insurance. It's an idea that unfortunately you have to get used to until something is done to dramatically lower the costs of healthcare. You have to be able to be responsible for someone's death and move forward. It's impossible to save everyone.

 

[fourchambered]

Would you prescribe the birth control pill to a 14 yr old who asked for it? Why?

The answers to this one has been interesting. Everyone has said 'only with parental consent.'

But what if the child didn't want the parents to know about the birth control? Although her autonomy may be questioned in her decision to become sexually active (due to young age), doesn't the doctor have a duty to protect her from potential damage? If birth control is not provided, what if the girl goes out and becomes pregnant behind her parents' back? This could have been easily prevented if the birth control was perscribed and the patient confidentiality upheld.

Is there a particular reason that everyone wants parental consent? I don't think requiring it is realistic in this case.

 

[shevie]

What would I do if a mom refused to give her 11 year old daughter HPV vaccines because she didn't want to encourage sexual promiscuity.

I would tell her that is an extremely flawed logic and that not being HPV vaccinated will not prevent her daughter from being sexual promiscuous, but instead, will predispose her to a very serious disease. I'd try to convince her (diplomatically) that her viewpoint is ignorant as hell and that the daughter should get the vaccination. If she still refused, then I would check the parameters of child abuse defined by the state I practiced in to see if that could potentially be a case of it. If so, I'd report it, if not, then I would do nothing since at that point I can't.


I'm surprised no one mentioned this being possible child abuse either. Even as an EMT, we're told to be on the lookout for that...child abuse isn't just physically beating the kid you know, it can be any number of things, including denying the child vaccinations against diseases that could kill him/her or greatly decrease their quality of life when any reasonable person would want that vaccination.

while normally i would agree with you on the child abuse thing (ie in the case of not vaccinating for MMR, Polio, etc), even if the parent is standing there and telling you "i think what im doing is best because i dont want them to get autism/become ******ed/whatever, because of this vaccine, and i read on the internet that....." theyre still ignorant and grossly misinformed. To me, its the same as a parent saying, "i know that scientifically speaking, YOU think its wrong for me to whip my kid w/ a belt,but my dad did this to him, his dad to him, and his dad to him, and they all turned out ok, so i "know" this is whats best for MY child." Id still say sorry mister, im calling child services. just like in the vaccine case. Id try to convince the crazy vaccine parent, but if they stick to their guns, id yell child abuse too.

BUT - HPV is different. Is this girl sexually active? the question never "specified," and i think that is ESSENTIAL.

Yes, if the kid is sexually active at 11 (?!?), id tell the mother shes wrong, and i would probably also recommend counseling and therapy for both the mom and the kid. Sorry, but the essential problem here ISNT that shes not allowing her kid to get the vaccine for a disease caused by sexual activity, its that her eleven year old CHILD, barely a teenager, for whatever reason, is sexually active. Such behavior at such a young age shouldnt be "treated" w/ a vaccine. You have to stop the greater problem in its tracks.

if shes NOT sexually active though, then why should she be forced/her mother be forced, to be vaccinated for something that isnt applicable to her? Like i said In my post above, im pretty sure there is a state where HPV vaccination is mandatory now (maybe texas), and id be pissed as hell if i lived there. I went to an all girls private high school. I grew up very religious. sex before marriage wasnt even a question among me and my friends!! so to FORCE me to get vaccinated for something that a) wont be beneficial to me at all b) if i DONT get vaccinated for it, im NOT bringing the risk of potential harm to others (very different therefore than s/o refusing a measles vaccine), is unfair, and also, very demeaning. not EVERY 11 year old has no moral values. And if I WERE the mother standing htere, id be really mad at a doctor saying, this is what we recommend for 11 year olds these days. How sick is our society that this is where weve stooped to??? vaccinating 11 year olds for STDS?? they should be worrying about what to watch on nickelodeon, what position they play on their soccer league, and what color shoes their babrie should be wearing tomorrow, NOT condoms and HPV.

 

[sylus]

The answers to this one has been interesting. Everyone has said 'only with parental consent.'

But what if the child didn't want the parents to know about the birth control? Although her autonomy may be questioned in her decision to become sexually active (due to young age), doesn't the doctor have a duty to protect her from potential damage? If birth control is not provided, what if the girl goes out and becomes pregnant behind her parents' back? This could have been easily prevented if the birth control was perscribed and the patient confidentiality upheld.

Is there a particular reason that everyone wants parental consent? I don't think requiring it is realistic in this case.

I was wondering this too- as far as I know, it is perfectly legal to give a minor birth control without consent from their parents. I would just talk to her and make sure she understood other risks of being sexually active and that the pill isn't effective 100%, etc and then prescribe it to her. If she's bothering to get the pill, she obviously has at least a slight sense of responsibility, so if she doesn't want her parents involved then that's her decision.

 

[sylus]

BUT - HPV is different. Is this girl sexually active? the question never "specified," and i think that is ESSENTIAL.

Yes, if the kid is sexually active at 11 (?!?), id tell the mother shes wrong, and i would probably also recommend counseling and therapy for both the mom and the kid. Sorry, but the essential problem here ISNT that shes not allowing her kid to get the vaccine for a disease caused by sexual activity, its that her eleven year old CHILD, barely a teenager, for whatever reason, is sexually active. Such behavior at such a young age shouldnt be "treated" w/ a vaccine. You have to stop the greater problem in its tracks.

if shes NOT sexually active though, then why should she be forced/her mother be forced, to be vaccinated for something that isnt applicable to her? Like i said In my post above, im pretty sure there is a state where HPV vaccination is mandatory now (maybe texas), and id be pissed as hell if i lived there. I went to an all girls private high school. I grew up very religious. sex before marriage wasnt even a question among me and my friends!! so to FORCE me to get vaccinated for something that a) wont be beneficial to me at all b) if i DONT get vaccinated for it, im NOT bringing the risk of potential harm to others (very different therefore than s/o refusing a measles vaccine), is unfair, and also, very demeaning. not EVERY 11 year old has no moral values. And if I WERE the mother standing htere, id be really mad at a doctor saying, this is what we recommend for 11 year olds these days. How sick is our society that this is where weve stooped to??? vaccinating 11 year olds for STDS?? they should be worrying about what to watch on nickelodeon, what position they play on their soccer league, and what color shoes their babrie should be wearing tomorrow, NOT condoms and HPV.

What about the future, though? Even if the girl plans to wait until marriage to have sex, what if her husband turned out to have it and gave it to her? I am unsure of how long the vaccine lasts, I don't think they really know yet, so why not just get it and if the issue ever does come up, she will be protected. There is also the fact to remember that according to the question, it is the <b>mother's</b> opinion that it will encourage promiscuity, it does not state the opinion of the girl which I think should also be taken into account. The girl might very well be planning to have sex. I would tell the mother that the shot is simply a protective measure in case the girl does get exposed to HPV, and if she is so worried that it will promote promiscuity then she might want to have a talk with her daughter about it, not deny medical treatment that could save her life in the future.

 

[emttim]

I was wondering this too- as far as I know, it is perfectly legal to give a minor birth control without consent from their parents. I would just talk to her and make sure she understood other risks of being sexually active and that the pill isn't effective 100%, etc and then prescribe it to her. If she's bothering to get the pill, she obviously has at least a slight sense of responsibility, so if she doesn't want her parents involved then that's her decision.

I'm sure most of us who said "with parental consult, yes" were operating under the assumption that parental consent was required for it to be legal to prescribe birth control to the minor.

If parental consent was not require for it to be legal, then I wouldn't care if I had it or not. As long as I'm not doing something illegal that I could lose my license for, I have no opinion on it.

 

[emttim]

while normally i would agree with you on the child abuse thing (ie in the case of not vaccinating for MMR, Polio, etc), even if the parent is standing there and telling you "i think what im doing is best because i dont want them to get autism/become ******ed/whatever, because of this vaccine, and i read on the internet that....." theyre still ignorant and grossly misinformed. To me, its the same as a parent saying, "i know that scientifically speaking, YOU think its wrong for me to whip my kid w/ a belt,but my dad did this to him, his dad to him, and his dad to him, and they all turned out ok, so i "know" this is whats best for MY child." Id still say sorry mister, im calling child services. just like in the vaccine case. Id try to convince the crazy vaccine parent, but if they stick to their guns, id yell child abuse too.

BUT - HPV is different. Is this girl sexually active? the question never "specified," and i think that is ESSENTIAL.

Yes, if the kid is sexually active at 11 (?!?), id tell the mother shes wrong, and i would probably also recommend counseling and therapy for both the mom and the kid. Sorry, but the essential problem here ISNT that shes not allowing her kid to get the vaccine for a disease caused by sexual activity, its that her eleven year old CHILD, barely a teenager, for whatever reason, is sexually active. Such behavior at such a young age shouldnt be "treated" w/ a vaccine. You have to stop the greater problem in its tracks.

if shes NOT sexually active though, then why should she be forced/her mother be forced, to be vaccinated for something that isnt applicable to her? Like i said In my post above, im pretty sure there is a state where HPV vaccination is mandatory now (maybe texas), and id be pissed as hell if i lived there. I went to an all girls private high school. I grew up very religious. sex before marriage wasnt even a question among me and my friends!! so to FORCE me to get vaccinated for something that a) wont be beneficial to me at all b) if i DONT get vaccinated for it, im NOT bringing the risk of potential harm to others (very different therefore than s/o refusing a measles vaccine), is unfair, and also, very demeaning. not EVERY 11 year old has no moral values. And if I WERE the mother standing htere, id be really mad at a doctor saying, this is what we recommend for 11 year olds these days. How sick is our society that this is where weve stooped to??? vaccinating 11 year olds for STDS?? they should be worrying about what to watch on nickelodeon, what position they play on their soccer league, and what color shoes their babrie should be wearing tomorrow, NOT condoms and HPV.

I'm sure no one wants to think about it, but tell that explanation to the 11 year old who got raped by a chomo and now has HPV anyway because of circumstances beyond her control.

 

[mmc48]

The answers to this one has been interesting. Everyone has said 'only with parental consent.'

But what if the child didn't want the parents to know about the birth control? Although her autonomy may be questioned in her decision to become sexually active (due to young age), doesn't the doctor have a duty to protect her from potential damage? If birth control is not provided, what if the girl goes out and becomes pregnant behind her parents' back? This could have been easily prevented if the birth control was perscribed and the patient confidentiality upheld.

Is there a particular reason that everyone wants parental consent? I don't think requiring it is realistic in this case.

Just a thought, but is it really the physician's job to prevent pregnancy in a minor? One might say that the physician has no obligation to prescribe it because it doesn't treat a medical condition. So does the weight of the matter stick with the physician, or is it on the "child" who has the very adult choice of whether to have sex at a young age or to stay abstinent? I think the burden doesn't lie with the physician to protect the child from pregnancy, but on the child to consider her choices more carefully. Just some thoughts, definitely not a solid opinion on my part.

Either way, I would only prescribe it with parental consent. I feel going behind the parent's back undermines the strength of the family unit, and that the child should discuss the matter with her parents. If she could not gain parental consent, I would refuse to give the prescription and point her in a direction (to another physician, clinic, etc.) that would be more accomodating to her needs.

 

[shevie]

What about the future, though? Even if the girl plans to wait until marriage to have sex, what if her husband turned out to have it and gave it to her?

um, i thought most ppl get tested for stds before marriage?



There is also the fact to remember that according to the question, it is the <b>mother's</b> opinion that it will encourage promiscuity, it does not state the opinion of the girl which I think should also be taken into account.

fine, but i think its important to understand where theyre at as a FAMILY. whoever argued its borderline abuse for a parent to refuse to give the child this vaccine (was that u? i dont remember), should probably also consider that its also borderline abuse to allow your eleven year old to be having sex, on a multitude of levels (PHYSICAL, emotional, etc??) that was one point i was trying to make.

The girl might very well be planning to have sex.

and so although as a person i might think what shes doing is beyond sickening, as a DOCTOR, i have a requirement to treat her, just as id treat a 25 yr old married woman w/ 2 kids who is sexually active. but you have to treat the actual disease, not the symptom. her HAVING SEX at age 11, is only a symptom of a much larger problem which must be dealt with accordingly. which is why, before doing anything else, i would send her to a psychologist and/or family counseling together w/ her mom, because there is probably some sort of underlying issue, and an 11 year old "lashing out" by wanting to have sex? im sorry,b ut id suspect abuse or an underlying psychiatric problem (hypersexuality secondary to bipolar disorder perhaps??)
and want to nip that in the bud before proceeding.

I'm sure no one wants to think about it, but tell that explanation to the 11 year old who got raped by a chomo and now has HPV anyway because of circumstances beyond her control.

sure but in medicine arent we taught to treat the horses not the zebras? sure, one out of ??1000?? 10,000?? ELEVEN YEAR OLDS will get raped. does that mean that the rest of them have to go through something as demeaning as having someone vaccinate them for HPV which is basically implying - i dont 100% trust you when you say im not going to have sex??
you have to live your life. seriously. thinking about the 1 unlucky 11 year old, while her case is unfortunate, is less than "fair" to all the other eleven year olds out there.
if an eleven year old's mother refuses to give her child an HPV shot, its not like shes refusing to give her a measles vaccine.

 

[RySerr21]

When a couple has kids who may be slightly odd in some ways but relatively normal, they claim to love their kids more than they could ever love anyone. I believe this is true. If a kid is genetically engineered to have a perfect nose and jaw bone, what would be the point? If they would have loved the kid with the flaws he'd have normally, then why does he need to be any different.

yes couples love their kids unconditionally (generally), but i dont see how your example fits. i wouldnt consider a big nose or a big jaw bone a flaw, i would think more drastic like an actual deformity. and just because you would love your kid no matter what he/she looked like doesnt mean that you woudnt want them to look "perfect" if you had the chance.

Also, how do you know a kid would even wants to be so aesthetically perfect? What if he liked the fact that his nose was big because it gave him a sense of uniqueness? How could you possibly know what your kid wants?

kids are mean. do you reallly think being fat, having a huge nose, or a big forhead, etc. gives that person a sense of uniqueness? kids will make fun of anything they see if its not "normal." most people tell me i have a "flat nose" i was even asked if i was a boxer once (not a high point in my life haha). Do I feel "unique". No. Did kids make fun of me for it all the time? Yes. Luckily it didn't bother me too much b/c it coud be way worse than a flat nose, but you get my point. and i personally think my flat nose is cute.

 

[soulspokn]

It's pretty tough to prepare for individual questions, you would probably be preparing for years. I know other people have gotten some tough questions, but I have really had very few so it may be kind of hit or miss. Just do your best to brush up on some of the big issues, some have already been mentioned, assisted suicide, abortion, definitely u.s. healthcare issues, genetic testing, etc. Interviewers are aware that we are not going to give any groundbreaking answers to their questions, but just see that we have a moderate amount of information on the subjects and can keep up a coherent conversation.

Sometimes they throw out really random questions too so get ready for that. My last interview I got asked how I would make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich 😛

how cute! haha. i'd laugh out loud if it was asked with the same earnestness as questions regarding abortion and suicide.

 

[SoFlaKnight]

This thread is so money and it's my interview week👍👍👍👍

*In my Trent from Swingers voice*: This threads a big winner. I'm gonna ask you a simple question and I want you to listen to me: who's the big winner here tonight at the casino? Huh? This thread, that's who. This thread's the big winner. Ethics thread wins.

Now I'm gonna pull me a Fredo

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

you wouldn't sacrifice one person to save many?

Yeah, haven't you seen Wrath of Kahn?

 

[fourchambered]

Just a thought, but is it really the physician's job to prevent pregnancy in a minor? One might say that the physician has no obligation to prescribe it because it doesn't treat a medical condition. So does the weight of the matter stick with the physician, or is it on the "child" who has the very adult choice of whether to have sex at a young age or to stay abstinent? I think the burden doesn't lie with the physician to protect the child from pregnancy, but on the child to consider her choices more carefully. Just some thoughts, definitely not a solid opinion on my part.

Either way, I would only prescribe it with parental consent. I feel going behind the parent's back undermines the strength of the family unit, and that the child should discuss the matter with her parents. If she could not gain parental consent, I would refuse to give the prescription and point her in a direction (to another physician, clinic, etc.) that would be more accomodating to her needs.

This reasoning reminds me of abstinence-only sex ed, which I'm not for. The doctor has to recognize the decision has been made to become sexually active (whether it's ill advised or not) and be practical. He can do a great service to the girl by preventing unwanted pregnancy. I agree with sylus. As long as it's legal, I would talk to the girl about the risks of becoming sexually active, educate her about her situation and then perscribe it.

Interesting question though. I bet there are physicians out there that would go either way as well.

 

[Rotinaj]

The answers to this one has been interesting. Everyone has said 'only with parental consent.'

But what if the child didn't want the parents to know about the birth control? Although her autonomy may be questioned in her decision to become sexually active (due to young age), doesn't the doctor have a duty to protect her from potential damage? If birth control is not provided, what if the girl goes out and becomes pregnant behind her parents' back? This could have been easily prevented if the birth control was perscribed and the patient confidentiality upheld.

Is there a particular reason that everyone wants parental consent? I don't think requiring it is realistic in this case.

Since when is it a physician's duty to prescribe medicine for people when their conditions are within their control? It could have just as easily been prevented if she'd used a condom or abstained. And what happens when the parents find out she has herpes because her doctor gave her a medication that enabled her to have STD-unprotected sex? The subsequent lawsuit would probably cost you your license as well as the awards you'd be shelling out.

It's illegal to prescribe medication to a minor without parent/guardian consent. Also it's undermining the authority of the parents who have a right to raise their child how they see fit (within reason). I think that maintaining your daughter's virginity through 14 is pretty reasonable. How would you feel if your child was on Ritalin without your knowledge because they were diagnosed behind your back for ADD? How about pain medication? Wouldn't you as a parent want to be informed of your child's health and activities? The girl is 14 and subsequently doesn't have adult privilidges such as autonomy or complete freedom of choice. At the most, a doctor should tell her to talk to her parents if she wants a controlled substance, and if she must have sex, to use a condom.

 

[shevie]

I think that maintaining your daughter's virginity through 14 is pretty reasonable.

but 15 is UNreasonable?
just curious
arent children "minors" until 18?
I can maybe hear an argument for 16 (though i disagree), but a fifteen year old? Isnt that like a sophomore in high school?

How would you feel if your child was on Ritalin without your knowledge because they were diagnosed behind your back for ADD? How about pain medication? Wouldn't you as a parent want to be informed of your child's health and activities?

great point.

 

[mmc48]

This reasoning reminds me of abstinence-only sex ed, which I'm not for. The doctor has to recognize the decision has been made to become sexually active (whether it's ill advised or not) and be practical. He can do a great service to the girl by preventing unwanted pregnancy. I agree with sylus. As long as it's legal, I would talk to the girl about the risks of becoming sexually active, educate her about her situation and then perscribe it.

Interesting question though. I bet there are physicians out there that would go either way as well.

Interesting comparison. How would you say the reasoning compares to abstinence-only education (which, while being pretty conservative myself, I don't support abstinence-only education)? I think my point is that the girl is 14, and I personally would not feel right not having the parents involved in the situation since the patient is not a legal adult. I agree with rotinaj's post quite a bit. I think requiring parental consent, along with patient education, is a decision made by the physician that is in the best interest of the patient and the family.

 

[Rotinaj]

but 15 is UNreasonable?
just curious
arent children "minors" until 18?
I can maybe hear an argument for 16 (though i disagree), but a fifteen year old? Isnt that like a sophomore in high school?

I think there are laws that address this. In many states, the "age of consent" is 16, therefore making sex at 15 or below an illegal act, even if the parents give their approval.

 

[fourchambered]

what happens when the parents find out she has herpes because her doctor gave her a medication that enabled her to have STD-unprotected sex?

I disagree with the word "enable" here. If the parents don't want their child having sex, then they should take the initiative to bring their kid up in that way. The doctor doesn't interfere with that or "enable" anything. He merely protects the child from the consequences of a decision that has already been made. The parents can do whatever they want to influence that decision.

The doctor also has the responsibility to warn the patient that the pill will not protect against herpes and it would be best to also use a condom.

It's illegal to prescribe medication to a minor without parent/guardian consent.

Not for contraceptives.

Also it's undermining the authority of the parents who have a right to raise their child how they see fit (within reason).

The doctor isn't undermining anything. The parents have just failed at raising the child in the way that they see fit. They have a responsibility to be aware of what their child is doing and have dropped the ball. The doctor is only making the situation safer for the child by providing contraceptives and informing her.

How would you feel if your child was on Ritalin without your knowledge because they were diagnosed behind your back for ADD? How about pain medication?

This is taking the situation out of context. Ritalin and pain medication are not taboo issues. There should be no problem communicating these issues to the parents. That is why these examples feel clearly wrong.

How would you say the reasoning compares to abstinence-only education (which, while being pretty conservative myself, I don't support abstinence-only education)?

Because it operates under the assumption that providing information or the necessary tools to engage in safe sex will directly cause or "enable" people to have sex.


Like I said though, people can go either way on these issues. Our debate will never come out with a "right answer." At interviews I think it's more a matter of if you can make a good argument and speak intelligibly on the subject. Premeds notoriously see in black and white and they want to see how you handle yourself in the gray areas.

 

[Rotinaj]

Like I said though, people can go either way on these issues. Our debate will never come out with a "right answer." At interviews I think it's more a matter of if you can make a good argument and speak intelligibly on the subject. Premeds notoriously see in black and white and they want to see how you handle yourself in the gray areas.

I'll agree with that 😀. As long as you can defend your argument without sounding like an idiot, then you've mastered the excercise.

 

[shevie]

Ritalin and pain medication are not taboo issues.

?

 

[RySerr21]

Since when is it a physician's duty to prescribe medicine for people when their conditions are within their control? It could have just as easily been prevented if she'd used a condom or abstained.

is that the attitude you have for heart disease, diabetes, obesity, etc.? all of these things are VERY preventable and yet heart disease is the leading killer in america. should we not treat people with heart disease b/c the conditions were in the patients control?