Interview ethics questions

[mokadet]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I was wondering if those of you that have had interviews would share some questions (and answers/reaction of interviewer/etc) that you were asked, particularly ethical questions as they usually come up. I know a bunch of us have interviews looming and any insight would be fantastic.

 

[chickenboo]

My ethics question (at Kansas State) was about the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, and what my opinion was. The question was phrased something like, "You hear a lot on the news these days (that's the point when I thought it was going to be a current events question!) about animal rights and animal welfare. What do you think is the difference between the two terms, if there is a difference, and what is your opinion about them?"

I'm not totally sure about the technical or dictionary definitions of these terms, but my response was something like this: The animal rights faction believes that animals are accorded rights--as in the same or similar rights that human beings are accorded. The animal welfare faction believes that animals cannot be accorded the same rights as humans because they don't have the same abilities to reason and make choices (i.e. be responsible for their actions, have a conscience) like humans do. I then said that I thought the animal rights movement was good in that it had brought public attention to some serious issues, like the treatment of animals in food production and laboratories, but that many of their claims are based on emotional appeals and not science. I also said I agreed with the animal welfare side.

The interviewers then asked a follow-up question dealing specifically with the treatment of lab animals--i.e. how does the above apply to lab animals. I said that lab animals also need to be treated as well as possible; however, in some situations, some minor pain or discomfort they experience may be outweighed by a much greater benefit in the long run. I also pointed out that lab mice and primates need to be treated differently--i.e. it may not always be permissible to subject primates, because of their higher cognitive/reasoning abilities and more complex emotions, to the same experiments mice are subjected to.

I think that was about it...the interviewers started nodding a lot when I was talking about how it was good that the animal rights movement brought attention to some issues, but that their claims are not based on scientific evidence. Hope that helps!

 

[zufuss]

Good answer. I tried to answer it myself before I read the rest of your reply and didn't come up with anything as convincing as your argument!

 

[Moxxie]

When I interviewed at WSU in 2002, one of the questions that came up (it was actually an essay question) was the following:

A client brings in a healthy two year old labrador retriever and asks for you to euthanize it, but does not elaborate on any reasons why. How would you respond to this situation?

 

[mokadet]

When I interviewed at WSU in 2002, one of the questions that came up (it was actually an essay questions) was the following:

A client brings in a healthy two year old labrador retriever and asks for you to euthanize it, but does not elaborate on any reasons why. How would you respond to this situation?

This is a good one. I think it comes up a lot. I was talking to the Doctor I work with about this last night. (we had a healthy 17 year old cat come in to be euthanized because her owner died and none of her relatives wanted the cat). He said that he, as a rule, will not solely euthanize an animal. For example, if a non-client comes in asking to euthanize an animal he will not until he has developed a relationship with the animal and the owner. Then he said, the majority of the clients he sees really labor over a deceision to euthanize and he rarely pushes them to change their mind. However, he said if you as a doctor do not feel comfortable performing the euthanasia it is ok to suggest other options or refuse treatment. He said the interviewers might be looking for you recognize that when you agree to a treatment with the owner, you must complete the contract. (Apparently, it is more common than one might think that animals are not euthanized when owners think they have been - sounds 20/20 to me, but it has been known to happen).

If anyone else has had this questions I'd love some feedback.

 

[adenovirus]

I would personally not do it. I think I would try to convince the owner to take the animal to the humane society or put an add in the paper, etc. I have a family friend who's a vet (retired now for 10+ years) and he once told a woman that he would euthanize her cat (who I think was healthy, completely!)...but later that day the receptionist in the office saw the cat (after the owner had left) and the vet gave the cat to the receptionist. Its a small town in Michigan (Quincy, near MSU) and somehow the owner got wind of what happened and sued the vet for breach of contract!!! No clue how it turned out or if it actually went to court. But I thought that was crazy, and I still do.

Adeno

 

[AbbeyRoad]

I also got the difference between animal rights/welfare question at Kansas. But I didn't answer it as eloquently as you, chickenboo ! Basically I just tried to reinforce that animal welfare is something everyone in the veterinary profession should be concerned with, and anyone who owns or works with animals as well.

As to the euthanize or not to euthanize?" question, I was talking to my vet before I went to my interview, and he said if someone comes in with a healthy animal that they would like euthanized for some reason such as they no longer want the animal because they are moving, having children, etc.; he gives them a contract to sign saying that he will euthanize it only if no other suitable homes are found. On one occasion he took a dog home himself. So I suppose it is a personal issue, but I suppose a vet has to do what the clients want , unfortunatley.

 

[chris03333]

I remember one about a situation where you are a veterinarian and another veterinarian (I think they even called the vet your boss) is working on a case that he/she feels is terminal and has owners which want to do everything possible to make it live. The other veterinarian euthanizes (you see he/she do it) but then tells the owner the pet died. What do you do?

 

[chickenboo]

I know someone who got asked about declawing and tail docking. For declawing, he said that in general he doesn't agree with it and would like clients to try other things first, but as a last resort (i.e. the cat will be given up to the SPCA if nothing is done) he would declaw. For tail docking, he said that he would not do it to comply with breed standards, but would if it was medically necessary (i.e. "happy tail syndrome"). While I would agree with this view, you could also take the stance that you would declaw/tail dock/etc., as long as you can defend your point of view from a medical perspective. I'm sure there are a lot of dog breeders, for example, who would disagree with me, 🙂 and you could argue that it's better to have the procedure done in a hospital setting with sterile instruments, etc.

 

[mokadet]

I know someone who got asked about declawing and tail docking. For declawing, he said that in general he doesn't agree with it and would like clients to try other things first, but as a last resort (i.e. the cat will be given up to the SPCA if nothing is done) he would declaw. For tail docking, he said that he would not do it to comply with breed standards, but would if it was medically necessary (i.e. "happy tail syndrome"). While I would agree with this view, you could also take the stance that you would declaw/tail dock/etc., as long as you can defend your point of view from a medical perspective. I'm sure there are a lot of dog breeders, for example, who would disagree with me, 🙂 and you could argue that it's better to have the procedure done in a hospital setting with sterile instruments, etc.

The AVMA has official "positions" on both of these topics (http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/default.asp).
They are basically what you said: declawing as a last resort - try behavior modification first, and ear cropping/tail docking only if medically necessary - not solely for cosmetic reasons.

 

[chickenboo]

For a pretty complete list of questions, here's a good resource:
http://www.piercecollege.edu/faculty/shapirls/Sampleinterviewquestions.html

And I totally agree with mokadet--the AVMA's policies are a great place to do some research.

 

[verbal_kint]

What do you folks think of going beyond just not doing particularly things like tail docking, ear cropping, and declaws and using legislation to stop some of these practices?

I know there are some laws in Europe that bans some of these practices, but I'm not certain of any specifics. Does anyone know about these and how effective they've been? Does it actually help or do more harm? Does it push breeders and other owners "underground" to have operations done?

I did a quick search and found this link:

http://www.wsava.org/Taildock.htm

 

[Bill59]

So I suppose it is a personal issue, but I suppose a vet has to do what the clients want , unfortunatley.

Actually, that's the point of this question. Is the veterinarian required to do whatever the client wants? Even if it conflicts with the veterinarian's ethics? Does the veterinarian have any responsiblity to act as an advocate for the animal or is their sole responsibility to the client?

That's what they are trying to get you to think about when they ask this type of question.

 

[zufuss]

I have one for you all. It involved Feral Cat populations. The AVMA acknowledges that the feral cat status is an epidemic. I love cats. I think they are wonderful pets, however I feel that owners of cats should be held to the same stardards as dog owners and that they should be kept inside. I have seen many successful cat owners leash their cats. Its rather weird to see, but I think its a very responsible action.

I completely agree with the spay/neuter programs for feral cat populations, but on the other hand I see it as a uphill battle that isn't going to be won with contraception and spay neuter programs.

Personally the damage to native populations of wildlife by feral and even domestic cats is extraordinary. But people turn a blind eye to the fact that their adorable tabby has a love for the prowl and kill outside.

But I don't think I would bring these points up in the actual interview. I would want to stay focused on more legistature and more funding from the government to local organizations that carry out spay and neuter programs for ferals. But I am curious to know what you all think. I just don't think my hard stance on feral cats would go over to well at an interview 😉

 

[zufuss]

Actually in reply to my own post, I did find that the AVMA has changed it stance to be more hardlined. They suggest that local governments should adopt policy that treats feral cats like any other stray domestic animal. Trap, Hold, and After a certain period of time if no one adopts: Euthanasia. I was actually unaware of this.

Of course living out in the country, my county has absolutely no legislature dealing with feral cats and I assume that many other rural areas are similar in their stances. They spend as little as possible on animal control as they can get away with.

The feral cat population in my area is out of control, and its going to take years to ever convince them (if ever) to consider managing the populations.

I just think feral cats are a lose/lose situation.

 

[Olddodger]

I have seen many successful cat owners leash their cats. Its rather weird to see, but I think its a very responsible action.

Not to inject a bit of humor into a serious topic, but...

I've always been more of a cat person than dog. Back in my younger days, I saw my contemporary buds walking their dogs as a way of meeting the opposite sex (apparently women are powerless against the draw of a dog in a neckerchief). Anyway, in my independent way, thought "heck, I'll teach my cat to walk on a leash, and think how cool I'll be!"

Nope...I did manange teach the cat to walk on a leash, but all I got in return were goofy looks and a muttered "look at the weirdo walking the cat". Anyway, I gave it up, to my cat's immense relief.

Oh well, back to match.com...

Best,

Oldie

 

[chickenboo]

I have a family friend who's a vet (retired now for 10+ years) and he once told a woman that he would euthanize her cat (who I think was healthy, completely!)...but later that day the receptionist in the office saw the cat (after the owner had left) and the vet gave the cat to the receptionist. Its a small town in Michigan (Quincy, near MSU) and somehow the owner got wind of what happened and sued the vet for breach of contract!!! No clue how it turned out or if it actually went to court. But I thought that was crazy, and I still do.

One thing you can do to avoid this type of situation (and is a good "interview answer" too) is to suggest having the owner sign the animal over to the hospital. This works in both the "I want to euth my healthy animal" and "I don't have enough money to pay for this tx" situations. That way the hospital owns the animal and can decide what to do with it. May not always work or be practical, but it's a whole lot better than doing something unethical or illegal.

Also, about the feral cat population, my personal stance is to agree with you, zufuss. I am pretty hardlined about anything relating to the environment, so the feral cat and outdoor pet cat problems really get my goat. I think what interviewers are looking for is your ability to back up your claims with hard evidence (i.e. that cats are detrimental to the environment) and your ability to acknowledge and address the other side of the issue--so no, I think even if you have a strong opinion on something, as long as it is well-researched and thought-out, I don't think that's a negative in an interview.

 

[PsychoLulu]

Hey Guys,
I just read the thread quickly, and while Chickenboo gave a really good answer to the animal rights versus welfare question, there were a few points that were kinda off...(Sorry, Chickenboo, don't mean to put you on the spot here, but just don't want anyone to go into an interview with the wrong info... 🙂 )
I have to run, but I remember doing some research on this topic so I could write the Missouri supplemental.....Will write more later tonight when I have time to find my essay and notes! (One key thing to point out is that animal rights, in it's most extreme stance, considers even companion animals as an unacceptable for of animal use, and will not endorse saving endangered wildlife because the basis behind the theory is that no one species should get preferencial treatment.... So when you really think about it, the veterinary field would essentially be obsolete if animal right activists ruled the world!)
Okok, more later! I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date! 😛