Got ethics interview questions??? Wanna share?

[fourchambered]

---

Members don't see this ad.

?

Kids would rather talk to their moms about performing poorly in school or having continual headaches rather than getting freaky with their boyfriends.

 

[bigDee]

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.

My example fits because the point I am making here is that some parents may want their kid to be aesthetically perfect, they want them to have a perfect face. In terms of pure beauty, a big nose is in fact a flaw.

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.

But how do you know that they want to look perfect?? You may be doing them a disservice.

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.

"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?"

 

[Gospe1]

This is an interesting scenario that came up in my healthcare ethics class:

Two patients are crashing on opposite ends of the hospital and there is only 1 crash team. One patient crashed seconds before the other one and is severely mentally ******ed. The other patient who crashed seconds later is a respected member of your community. As the crash team leader, you have a split second to decide who to save. You know the histories of both patients and who crashed first. who do you save?

Should we save the mentally ******ed person solely because his heart failed moments before the other patient? Should we distribute medicine as we do fast food, first-come first-serve?


Here's another scenario:

Elderly woman in the initially stages of Alzheimer's signs a statement saying that no extraordinary effort should be taken ito save her life f she were to fall ill. Years later, now with severe Alzheimer's, this lady develops pneumonia. Her doctor is about to send her home from the hospital with no medication when she says "save my life. save me." What should the doctor do? (I believe this is an actual case)

Also, I'm curious what people have to say about age-rationing healthcare. Something like 50% of medical costs go to people who are 75 and older. Should we ration their healthcare in order to benefit the rest of society?

 

[bigDee]

Wow these are some hard questions. I think the hardest part is to pick a side and stick to it.

This is an interesting scenario that came up in my healthcare ethics class:

Two patients are crashing on opposite ends of the hospital and there is only 1 crash team. One patient crashed seconds before the other one and is severely mentally ******ed. The other patient who crashed seconds later is a respected member of your community. As the crash team leader, you have a split second to decide who to save. You know the histories of both patients and who crashed first. who do you save?

Should we save the mentally ******ed person solely because his heart failed moments before the other patient? Should we distribute medicine as we do fast food, first-come first-serve?

There are a few factors to decide for both sides. Lets look at the well respected member of society. We can save him based not only on his contribution to society, but on the fact that he appreciates life more than the ******ed person. If he values life so much then if he could talk to us right now, he'd be begging us to let him live. While if the ******ed person could talk, he wouldn't try to sway you towards either side because he might not even care. A similar argument could be made for why its ok to kill animals, even though we don't need to kill them. Is it because they don't value life as much as we do? Should we spare the lives of those who simply value and contribute to it, or is there another basis for who is more deserving of life? Or are we all equally deserving? (If anyone wants to counter these arguments please do but nevermind any god arguments).

Now lets look at saving the ******ed person. Ok, should we chose to save someone's life over another based on their contribution to society and how much they value life? Certainly a baby doesn't value life or contribute to it, but it's life is put to very high regard.

I really don't know what I'd do. You said they went crashing seconds before each other. If that means a marginal amount of time then I guess I'd go for the respected member of society. If there was a significant amount of seconds between the two then I'd probably go for the ******ed person.
I don't really have an argument to say why I'd do one over another. It's just what I would do personally. If I was given the responsibility of writing a policy or to give a lecture telling what other people should do and I had to give an absolute answer, I'd probably go for the ******ed person. But I'm not really sure

Here's another scenario:

Elderly woman in the initially stages of Alzheimer's signs a statement saying that no extraordinary effort should be taken ito save her life f she were to fall ill. Years later, now with severe Alzheimer's, this lady develops pneumonia. Her doctor is about to send her home from the hospital with no medication when she says "save my life. save me." What should the doctor do? (I believe this is an actual case)

It depends on whether I decide she is still able to make a rational decision. if she is, then I'd let her current decision override her previous decision. If she cannot make a rational decision, then I'd look at her begging as something I knew would happen but would not let it affect me because I know that if in the past she could look at the way she is now, she'd say "see, if I ever get like that, just let me go."

Also, I'm curious what people have to say about age-rationing healthcare. Something like 50% of medical costs go to people who are 75 and older. Should we ration their healthcare in order to benefit the rest of society?

An argument could be made for both sides but I think this is kind of like the first question in that it all comes down to this: what is the basis for deciding what deserves another chance at life over another, or is all human life equally deserving no matter what? Personally, I don't think there should be any age-rationing.

 

[bodonid]

I thought this one was interesting, my only question on ethics all cycle, paraphrased:

"Many undergraduate schools (such as yours) offer classes in medical ethics. Few medical schools, however, put much direct emphasis on ethics. Do you think medical ethics is teachable? Ethics in general? What types of ethical questions would a medical school graduate be able to answer that a child would not?"

I also talked to one girl after her first interview whose interviewer asked her who to give a kidney to- an 18 year old with a criminal record or a 50 year old brilliant doctor. The question was more elaborate than that, but I would guess either answer would be okay as long as you present a logical reason why.