How to answer this tricky interview question?

[Ismet]

---

Members don't see this ad.

But then how does she consent if she is not of legal age to do so?
Simple assent isnt enough...


New ethical question:

two kidney transplant patients are presented.
Patient 1 is a rich donor who has agreed (contractual agreement) to donate an entire dialysis wing if he is given the kidney.
Patient 2 is a poor woman working two jobs and a single mother.

Both patients present at the same time and have the same lab values (and thus everything else is held equal)

Who do you decide to treat?

There are certain situations when minors aren't considered minors and can give consent without parent involvement or knowledge. Abortion is one of those situations.

For your second question, I understand that you're giving a hypothetical situation, but it's completely unrealistic, so I don't see what insight you gain from someone's response (assuming we're keeping in line with the thread and this is an interview question). The kidney goes to whoever is the best match, or if that's equal in your scenario, whoever is higher on the waiting list (whoever has been waiting longer). There are set guidelines for dealing with this, so in reality, it's not a big ethical dilemma.

 

[Bacchus]

Billing is what somebody else gets paid to bother with

Why would it matter to a physician, who practices medicine?

Counting dollars and cents is someone else's game

As a physician you have to be cognizant of billing. If you're only providing a coder enough information for a 99213 you're going to lose out all the extra money from a possible 99214 or 99215. The same goes for knowing relative reimbursements regarding RVUs. You're not going to do a lot of 1 RVU procedures when you can do another procedure which is 5 RVUs.

 

[Status Sciaticus]

There are certain situations when minors aren't considered minors and can give consent without parent involvement or knowledge. Abortion is one of those situations.

For your second question, I understand that you're giving a hypothetical situation, but it's completely unrealistic, so I don't see what insight you gain from someone's response (assuming we're keeping in line with the thread and this is an interview question). The kidney goes to whoever is the best match, or if that's equal in your scenario, whoever is higher on the waiting list (whoever has been waiting longer). There are set guidelines for dealing with this, so in reality, it's not a big ethical dilemma.

Actually its not about how unrealistic it is.
I did a mock interview at TCOM and my interviewer who happens to be on the adcom asked me that exact question.

 

[Ismet]

Actually its not about how unrealistic it is.
I did a mock interview at TCOM and my interviewer who happens to be on the adcom asked me that exact question.

Sorry, I still think it's a really poorly constructed scenario.

 

[mimelim]

Actually its not about how unrealistic it is.
I did a mock interview at TCOM and my interviewer who happens to be on the adcom asked me that exact question.

This is no different than asking an applicant, if you had to save your mother or your father, which would you save? It is a terrible interview question. It doesn't actually glean meaningful information about the applicant.

 

[Status Sciaticus]

Sorry, I still think it's a really poorly constructed scenario.

This is no different than asking an applicant, if you had to save your mother or your father, which would you save? It is a terrible interview question. It doesn't actually glean meaningful information about the applicant.

Yea but if I tell the interviewer that his questions are poorly constructed or are meaningless, then obviously I can kiss my chance there goodbye.

 

[mimelim]

Yea but if I tell the interviewer that his questions are poorly constructed or are meaningless, then obviously I can kiss my chance there goodbye.

The point is that it is not worth spending even 30 seconds of time thinking about or preparing for such questions. Yes, they will get asked, you will get tons of illegal questions on the residency interview trail as well. There is a correct and an incorrect answer for each of those questions that are "hard", which is why they are trivial questions. Trying to prepare for them is a complete waste of time. Do not burn bridges with those interviewers, but do not think for a second that those questions make or break an application.

 

[HealthHare]

The point is that it is not worth spending even 30 seconds of time thinking about or preparing for such questions. Yes, they will get asked, you will get tons of illegal questions on the residency interview trail as well. There is a correct and an incorrect answer for each of those questions that are "hard", which is why they are trivial questions. Trying to prepare for them is a complete waste of time. Do not burn bridges with those interviewers, but do not think for a second that those questions make or break an application.

This!

 

[Status Sciaticus]

The point is that it is not worth spending even 30 seconds of time thinking about or preparing for such questions. Yes, they will get asked, you will get tons of illegal questions on the residency interview trail as well. There is a correct and an incorrect answer for each of those questions that are "hard", which is why they are trivial questions. Trying to prepare for them is a complete waste of time. Do not burn bridges with those interviewers, but do not think for a second that those questions make or break an application.

Thanks!
FWIW, the answer I gave was that the decision isnt up to me. Thats the purpose of the hospital ethics panels and hospital transplant committees.

 

[mimelim]

Thanks!
FWIW, the answer I gave was that the decision isnt up to me. Thats the purpose of the hospital ethics panels and hospital transplant committees.

Just be careful, it is okay for medical school admissions to say that, but after that, the answer on the Steps or in interviews is never to dump the decision on someone else, even if in reality that is what you would do (and SHOULD do). You just have to briefly present both sides to demonstrate understanding, say that you are softly on one side, but would look to others with more experience for guidance. 🙂

 

[Status Sciaticus]

Just be careful, it is okay for medical school admissions to say that, but after that, the answer on the Steps or in interviews is never to dump the decision on someone else, even if in reality that is what you would do (and SHOULD do). You just have to briefly present both sides to demonstrate understanding, say that you are softly on one side, but would look to others with more experience for guidance. 🙂

I agree. I dont think its completely possible for a physician to be objective in determining who gets an organ, which is why the decision is made by multiple people.

Naturally the physician would advocate for his patient, or he should.