Interview Question - Would you kill baby hitler or 9/11 hijackers?

[GomerPyle]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have a question regarding this interview question many of us will stumble upon...

Would you kill baby hitler or the 9/11 hijackers if you had the chance? What about somebody that was going to kill your family?

Why on earth would you say no? As a physician, our role is to save lives. If I knew that hitler or the 9/11 hijackers were going to kill thousands of innocent people, than of course I would kill them. Wouldn't you?

What is a strong counter argument for this? "Fate"? "It would happen anyways"?

 

[DAPI]

I have a question regarding this interview question many of us will stumble upon...

Would you kill baby hitler or the 9/11 hijackers if you had the chance? What about somebody that was going to kill your family?

Why on earth would you say no? As a physician, our role is to save lives. If I knew that hitler or the 9/11 hijackers were going to kill thousands of innocent people, than of course I would kill them. Wouldn't you?

What is a strong counter argument for this? "Fate"? "It would happen anyways"?

Never seen this question anywhere, but the answer has to be innocent until proven guilty. And without the crime actually being committed, they are innocent, otherwise you are traveling down a slippery slope IMHO.

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile.

 

[darkjedi]

the answer is you get the terminator to do your dirty work for you

 

[Cuongoff]

What about our role as a physician to try and prevent others from being harmed?

I saw somewhere while looking up interview questions- if a man found out he has HIV and is not going to tell his wife (after extensive explanation about the risks) we should tell the wife to prevent harm from coming to her even though it breaks HIPAA. Or is this scenario completely irrelevant?

 

[iforget2]

In hindsight, yes. Without looking at it in hindsight, most likely not

 

[darkjedi]

What about our role as a physician to try and prevent others from being harmed?

I saw somewhere while looking up interview questions- if a man found out he has HIV and is not going to tell his wife (after extensive explanation about the risks) we should tell the wife to prevent harm from coming to her even though it breaks HIPAA. Or is this scenario completely irrelevant?

HIPAA unfortunately trumps duty to inform in that case specifically. Patient privacy is incredibly critical as without trust, there is significantly more risk of people turning away medical services such as testing for fear of their information released.

The responsibility of notification is in the realm of law and not medicine.

 

[deleted329605]

HIPAA unfortunately trumps duty to inform in that case specifically. Patient privacy is incredibly critical as without trust, there is significantly more risk of people turning away medical services such as testing for fear of their information released.

The responsibility of notification is in the realm of law and not medicine.

🙂l.

 

[minwoo123]

HIPAA unfortunately trumps duty to inform in that case specifically. Patient privacy is incredibly critical as without trust, there is significantly more risk of people turning away medical services such as testing for fear of their information released.

The responsibility of notification is in the realm of law and not medicine.

I must respectfully disagree. In this case, duty to inform overrides HIPAA because the wife is at DIRECT RISK from contracting HIV from her husband. In addition, HIV and other blood-borne pathogens are mandated to be reported to state health departments.

I would advise the physician to encourage the husband to tell his wife himself. If not, the physician has an ethical responsibility to notify the wife.

 

[FSU2013]

HIPAA unfortunately trumps duty to inform in that case specifically. Patient privacy is incredibly critical as without trust, there is significantly more risk of people turning away medical services such as testing for fear of their information released.

The responsibility of notification is in the realm of law and not medicine.

I believe you're wrong. Duty to inform trumps HIPAA in this context.

 

[darkjedi]

Mention of HIPAA? In this thread? What a ****ing tool. Go back to your cave, troll.

Excuse me?

I must respectfully disagree. In this case, duty to inform overrides HIPAA because the wife is at DIRECT RISK from contracting HIV from her husband. In addition, HIV and other blood-borne pathogens are mandated to be reported to state health departments.

I would advise the physician to encourage the husband to tell his wife himself. If not, the physician has an ethical responsibility to notify the wife.

I don't say I agree with it, but unfortunately that is the law. In cases like this HIPAA is very clear. Should you break confidentiality, your license is at risk of revocation and you can be sued and lose.

It is not the physician's duty to inform, it turns over to the state or CDC. I believe depending on the state, its still possible to remain anonymous if it is reported to the agencies however.

EDIT: Actually I started reading up on this more and it seems to vary heavily depending on the state. So it seems I'm not entirely right.

 

[487806]

Mention of HIPAA? In this thread? What a ****ing tool. Go back to your cave, troll.

Dude, you just called one of the most helpful people on the forum a troll, and most of your posts on the forum are trollish. Quit being a jerk.

 

[Goobs]

I don't say I agree with it, but unfortunately that is the law. In cases like this HIPAA is very clear. Should you break confidentiality, your license is at risk of revocation and you can be sued and lose.

It is not the physician's duty to inform, it turns over to the state or CDC. I believe depending on the state, its still possible to remain anonymous if it is reported to the agencies however.

Nevermind! Can't find anything that goes against this.

 

[circulus vitios]

That's such an incredibly stupid question to ask at a medical school interview. I would be obligated to troll the hell out of the interviewer.

 

[BabyDoc86]

I don't say I agree with it, but unfortunately that is the law. In cases like this HIPAA is very clear. Should you break confidentiality, your license is at risk of revocation and you can be sued and lose.

It is not the physician's duty to inform, it turns over to the state or CDC. I believe depending on the state, its still possible to remain anonymous if it is reported to the agencies however.

EDIT: Actually I started reading up on this more and it seems to vary heavily depending on the state. So it seems I'm not entirely right.

I've studied health law, & this is pretty much true. There can be some state variability, but it is generally the physician's responsibility to inform the proper authorities when a reportable disease presents, and those officials then contact those who may be at direct risk. That is my understanding of current case law.

 

[elevenses]

I have a question regarding this interview question many of us will stumble upon...

Would you kill baby hitler or the 9/11 hijackers if you had the chance? What about somebody that was going to kill your family?

Why on earth would you say no? As a physician, our role is to save lives. If I knew that hitler or the 9/11 hijackers were going to kill thousands of innocent people, than of course I would kill them. Wouldn't you?

What is a strong counter argument for this? "Fate"? "It would happen anyways"?

How about this: instead of killing Hitler, use your magic powers to improve the socioeconomic conditions of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, such that the war and the holocaust never occur.

It is much better, I think, to prevent evil by doing good, rather than by doing evil. The former is commendable; the latter unjustifiable.

 

[sliceofbread136]

How about this: instead of killing Hitler, use your magic powers to improve the socioeconomic conditions of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, such that the war and the holocaust never occur.

It is much better, I think, to prevent evil by doing good, rather than by doing evil. The former is commendable; the latter unjustifiable.

Did you just watch Looper or something?

 

[pkwraith]

I would reverse Hitler's art school application rejection. Why does the solution have to involve killing? Easier to change an application than murder someone, especially if you have the power to travel back in time.

 

[RomanTaylor]

My answer is quite obvious. Both.

 

[elevenses]

Did you just watch Looper or something?

Nope. I'm independently interested in the ethics of time travel.

 

[sliceofbread136]

Nope. I'm independently interested in the ethics of time travel.

Have you seen the movie? If not, you should.

 

[deleted451730]

When "breaking" HIPAA is legal: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/faq/ferpa_and_hipaa/520.html

 

[elevenses]

Have you seen the movie? If not, you should.

Almost saw it yesterday. Saw "Seven Psychopaths" instead. It's on my list, though, for sure.

 

[Aerus]

Did you just watch Looper or something?

👍

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Almost saw it yesterday. Saw "Seven Psychopaths" instead. It's on my list, though, for sure.

You really need to watch it. It's the perfect movie for your type of mindset haha.

 

[bubleeshaark]

Would you kill baby hitler or the 9/11 hijackers if you had the chance? What about somebody that was going to kill your family?

A physician's duty is to promote life, not death. I would never mix my practice of healing people with killing people!! Now if I was at my home and somebody threatened to kill my family, then there's no doubt that I would take him out and save my family!! I can't predict the future, so I could never kill baby Hitler because (like someone said before) he is innocent until proven guilty. I would probably kill the hijackers if I knew without doubt that they were gonna kill thousands. I would try to contact the authorities first, because it's just not my role to kill. Killing is a last resort only, if that.

 

[desphil]

Easy. I'd put Hitler in the evil baby orphanage.


...anyone? anyone?

 

[odysseus88]

Stop being medical robots for a minute and leave HIPAA, IRB forms and other policy nonsense out of this.

What he's saying is, would you change the course of history if you could go back in time? I dont know, the further back I go, the less likely I would be willing to alter history. None of us would be here in our present selves if history were altered.

But then again, I always wonder if it is a deterministic universe as Einstein and many others have postulated where if every atom follows physical laws, can there be variation? Anyway I digress.

 

[idontcaureuknow]

If i got asked that I'd probably have a blank look and then say no.

With Respect to Hitler: Look at the socioeconomic status of Germany at the time. The treaty of versailles was a joke. Who is to say someone else would not have taken advantage of that gap in power, and actually won the war. Who is to say that alternative fate would be better or worse.

Similar argument for 9/11. No use trying to change the past, but learn from it and improve the future.

 

[odysseus88]

If i got asked that I'd probably have a blank look and then say no.

With Respect to Hitler: Look at the socioeconomic status of Germany at the time. The treaty of versailles was a joke. Who is to say someone else would not have taken advantage of that gap in power, and actually won the war. Who is to say that alternative fate would be better or worse.

Similar argument for 9/11. No use trying to change the past, but learn from it and improve the future.

Although to be fair, if this were something that affected you or me personally, then our answer would be different. I doubt many of us would be too concerned about stopping Ivan the terrible or Gengis Khan since well, it didn't directly impact our life today.

 

[idontcaureuknow]

Although to be fair, if this were something that affected you or me personally, then our answer would be different. I doubt many of us would be too concerned about stopping Ivan the terrible or Gengis Khan since well, it didn't directly impact our life today.

Valid point. However I'd like to believe I still wouldn't change it. I don't like thinking about changing the past, rather learning from it. Terrible things will happen because people don't learn, and life's lessons are harsh and horrible. One cannot save everyone. But one can attempt to improve the life of others in the future by learning from these events.

edit: I guess what I'm saying is that I believe these events had far more to do with a situation imposed on people, rather than the people themselves. To fix these problems, more would need to be done than simply killing someone before they reach prominence.

 

[punkedoutriffs]

The "question behind the question" here is basically a debate over Utilitarian vs. Kantian values. In other words, ends vs. means. This is a philosophical debate that has not been resolved and probably never will. Basically, is it right to violate someone's "inalienable right" to life if you have fore-knowledge of their actions that violate the same right of others? The interviewer just probably wants to test how you approach and reason through the problem. It's an interesting question. I haven't seen Looper but the movie "Minority Report" kind of explored the same problem, if anyone remembers that one.

 

[ShenanigansMD]

With Respect to Hitler: Look at the socioeconomic status of Germany at the time. The treaty of versailles was a joke. Who is to say someone else would not have taken advantage of that gap in power, and actually won the war. Who is to say that alternative fate would be better or worse.

👍 It wasn't just Germany; fascism in Europe was... more or less "popular." The Spaniards were fighting a war over it, and it was on the rise in Italy too. If Hitler had been killed, it would have been quite possible that someone else would take his place. With enough propaganda, any leader can be replaced quite easily under fascism or any other "ism."

Anybody who has read Animal Farm knows what I'm talking about.

 

[Renaissance Man]

I have a question regarding this interview question many of us will stumble upon...

Would you kill baby hitler or the 9/11 hijackers if you had the chance? What about somebody that was going to kill your family?

Why on earth would you say no? As a physician, our role is to save lives. If I knew that hitler or the 9/11 hijackers were going to kill thousands of innocent people, than of course I would kill them. Wouldn't you?

What is a strong counter argument for this? "Fate"? "It would happen anyways"?

I can assure you that many of you will not "stumble" upon this interview question.

You gave yourself a "strong counter argument" for killing baby Hitler in your own post. How can you say that a physicians role is to "save lives" and then say "I would kill them"? If you believe the first statement than you can't believe your second...So you save all lives except those that commit atrocious deeds? Walk away from the death-row inmate coding in your ER? Do you mean saving the most possible lives?

 

[theseeker4]

👍 It wasn't just Germany; fascism in Europe was... more or less "popular." The Spaniards were fighting a war over it, and it was on the rise in Italy too. If Hitler had been killed, it would have been quite possible that someone else would take his place. With enough propaganda, any leader can be replaced quite easily under fascism or any other "ism."

Anybody who has read Animal Farm knows what I'm talking about.

War and Peace also has a great examination of the fallacy of history focusing on a few specific individuals as the driving force of historical events. In short, as much as historians like to focus on them, individuals rarely have as much power to shape history as they are given credit for.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Hitler was the only force that stopped Stalin from steamrolling Europe. If it wasn't for the initial thrust of Barbarossa, Stalin would have built up a massive invasion force and conquered Europe, at which point, no country would have been able to liberate the mainland. Hitler's invasion of Russia was devastating to the Russians because it wiped out major centers of industry, railroads, manpower and armor. Without these losses, Stalin would have waltz'ed through Europe, collectivized the entire continent and killed hundreds of millions of people in the process. Remember, Stalin starved more people in the Caucuses and the Ukraine than Hitler killed in the concentration camps/death squads. Between 10 and 20 million people died during Stalin's collectivization campaign while between 8-12 million were killed in Hitler's concentration camps. The only reason mainstream history ignores this fact is that Ukrainians don't have special victim status while Jews do.

Bottom line, Hitler saved lifes and made the 20th century a much more prosperous century for Europe.

 

[GNE24]

Imagine if a interviewer posed that type of question...it would be hard not for me to laugh.

"So...... would you kill Osama, Terminator 1, or Nick Cage in the movie Face Off?" lol

 

[Charles Darwin]

I'm not big on Jews, so probs the 9/11 jackers.

[/troll]

 

[Praefectus]

Looks like someone watched Looper this weekend...

 

[plumhill]

Something else to consider: as physicians you are forced to save the life of anyone who comes before you in a hospital, no matter who they are or what they have done. Killing baby Hitler or the 9/11 hijackers or a Nazi or anything like that might sound valiant, but as a physician you are to treat all of your patients equally. I realize that in the scenario those people are not yet your patients, but judgement of action is not something physicians should try and minimize when trying to help someone. Since you are training to be a physician and not a hit man or assassin, killing someone goes against the judgement of action claim and would be morally wrong as a physician.

 

[nabilesmail]

Meh, I'd rather suffer the moral consequence and be morally wrong as one man then allow a man to kill 6+ Million people

 

[Cambino]

When "breaking" HIPAA is legal: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/faq/ferpa_and_hipaa/520.html

/thread.

Babies crying 'HIPAA', give me a break. Of course you should tell the wife.

 

[music2doc]

HIPAA unfortunately trumps duty to inform in that case specifically. Patient privacy is incredibly critical as without trust, there is significantly more risk of people turning away medical services such as testing for fear of their information released.

The responsibility of notification is in the realm of law and not medicine.

One could probably argue this falls under Tarasoff as HIV remains a high mortality rate disease and if the pt expresses an intent to go and sleep with someone while having HIV (without notifying the person of that fact), this could be interpreted as an "intent to severely harm or kill" another person. I doubt most clinicians would interpret it this way, but it the argument could be made. Regardless, my understanding is it does have to be reported to the public health dept....

 

[music2doc]

Something else to consider: as physicians you are forced to save the life of anyone who comes before you in a hospital, no matter who they are or what they have done. Killing baby Hitler or the 9/11 hijackers or a Nazi or anything like that might sound valiant, but as a physician you are to treat all of your patients equally. I realize that in the scenario those people are not yet your patients, but judgement of action is not something physicians should try and minimize when trying to help someone. Since you are training to be a physician and not a hit man or assassin, killing someone goes against the judgement of action claim and would be morally wrong as a physician.

In the ED, yes. That said, if you had someone come in needing surgery and you had emotional ties to that person that you believe would prevent you from performing the necessary procedure to the standard of care, you could remove yourself from that person's care as long as someone else was able to provide that care instead. Of course you should provide care if possible, but you must also be keenly aware of yourself and be able to excuse yourself "when it's time."

 

[STAT EKG]

On the bright side, in the three or four interviews where I was asked this - I didn't get the vibe that it was a dealbreaker-type question.

 

[GomerPyle]

I can assure you that many of you will not "stumble" upon this interview question.

You gave yourself a "strong counter argument" for killing baby Hitler in your own post. How can you say that a physicians role is to "save lives" and then say "I would kill them"? If you believe the first statement than you can't believe your second...So you save all lives except those that commit atrocious deeds? Walk away from the death-row inmate coding in your ER? Do you mean saving the most possible lives?

Yes, I would lean towards the side of saving the most possible lives. I would rather deal with the moral consequence of killing one person than watching hundreds of thousands of innocent lives die...

 

[anon3]

I would laugh/chuckle at the question openly, say 'I don't think anyone is born evil' and look for a non-violent solution preventing their future mindset/opinions that caused their actions (I mean I do have time-traveling powers.) If they pushed saying its either-or, agonize like this stupid question requires serious thought and say yes (probably some interviewer with a master's in public health looking for validation of the field)