Interview Question Time #2

Discussion in 'Interviews' started by Matt, Nov 16, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Season

    Season Emeritus MSO Staff Emeritus

    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
  2. Nealie

    Nealie Auckland MBchB

    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Happy to stand corrected, but this is not what compulsory vax entails. Compulsory vax in the example and as we widely know it, is tied to access to public schooling ie; if you want to take advantage of state schooling, you are obligated to vax. No access to public schooling is the only 'consequence' of refusal to vax under such a scheme.
     
  3. JeremiahGreenspoon

    JeremiahGreenspoon Regular Member

    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16

    Difficult to say without knowing the stats behind the risks associated with an under vaccinated population, and the stats for how many deaths are linked to vaccines. i.e. is it a ‘greater good’ argument that fuels the stance for compulsory vaccination, are adverse reactions in fact extremely rare? (Note this isn't what I would say to the visiting mother, but the interviewers)

    I find the topic a bit difficult because if you are not equipped with the facts and sufficient background knowledge, your argument can appear a little weak. You can have a solid justifiable stance based on the information provided in the first question, and then they can provide more information/a challenge that in a sense negates the foundations of your argument, but which you would not be expected to be aware of.


    (a bit off topic but I find it quite distressing reading stories like that about children and infant death/illness, and I begin to question if I would be able to deal with it emotionally myself if I was a GP, and then question if I would cut it as a doc. Is that uncommon?)
     
  4. chinaski

    chinaski Regular Member

    Messages:
    4,115
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You're getting tangled up - the role of these sorts of questions is not to test your factual knowledge. Indeed, if your reply to such lines of enquiry is predominantly contained to factual information, you would stand the chance of scoring badly, because the interviewers aren't interested in hearing you regurgitate facts and figures, however correct they may be. It's important not to miss the forest for the trees in these sorts of scenarios. Don't make the blunder of approaching them as you would an exam question.
     
  5. JeremiahGreenspoon

    JeremiahGreenspoon Regular Member

    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Egads, that’s exactly what I hear at work when we’re scoping projects.

    How do I change how I’m looking at this? :(

    I feel like you’re initially presented with some information that suggests compulsory vaccination might be a good public health measure in order to get rates up to 80-90% and protect the population. You can then present your opinion on this, without delving into any facts. However if you are then challenged with additional information saying that Child A died because of a vaccination (or because of living in an under vaccinated area), your opinion can feasibly flip because you become ‘enlightened’ – is this ok?
     
  6. chinaski

    chinaski Regular Member

    Messages:
    4,115
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Let me answer that with another question: If you had to make just one point or impression in your reply, what would it be (ie What are the interviewers really asking you here?)?
     
  7. JeremiahGreenspoon

    JeremiahGreenspoon Regular Member

    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I suppose I would want to express my confidence in what has become quite standard medical practice, together with an awareness of the broader ethical issues associated with making vaccination compulsory.
     
  8. chinaski

    chinaski Regular Member

    Messages:
    4,115
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ...So what do you think they're wanting to explore when they present you with additional information about the child who died?
     
  9. JeremiahGreenspoon

    JeremiahGreenspoon Regular Member

    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Perhaps one or more of the below?:
    - Your awareness that medical treatment is not without its risks
    - your awareness of the impacts on the individual of wider scale public health measures
    - The strength of your convictions

    (thanks for your help teasing this thought process out btw, no matter how far off I may be)
     
  10. chinaski

    chinaski Regular Member

    Messages:
    4,115
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The structure of the question (in two parts) first requires that you think from a public health perspective - and indeed, you can do so without knowing anything about vaccinations per se. So, the points you initially raise, such as the rationale behind vaccination of an entire population, and the ethical issues of compulsory anything, are sound. When they follow up with the "human face" of this argument, they are narrowing the triangle down to its apex. They've asked you to think broadly on a population based perspective, now they're asking you to look at the issue from an individual perspective that is likely something you have never experienced yourself. As such, they are exploring your ability to empathise, to understand an opinion with which you mightn't necessarily agree, and to demonstrate an appreciation of the many shades of grey out there. To tackle this sort of a follow up question with dogmatic, statistical, cold facts alone, would be to ignore the subtextual question: where is the mother of the dead child coming from, and how can I understand her motivations better, in order to arrive at the best solution for everyone? How does the human point of the triangle affect its greater population base, and vice-versa?
     
  11. JeremiahGreenspoon

    JeremiahGreenspoon Regular Member

    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Thank you very very much.

    No wonder UMAT isn't the only criteria for entry.
     
  12. chinaski

    chinaski Regular Member

    Messages:
    4,115
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No worries - hope it helps some. :)
     
  13. JeremiahGreenspoon

    JeremiahGreenspoon Regular Member

    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Oh my it helps plenty.

    For me at least understanding the broader ideas of what the question is seeking to tease out may not create the most desirable response, but it would at least avoid me getting lost in the details as you said. Forest, not trees :)
     
  14. Dr Worm

    Dr Worm Regular Member

    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    No, that isn't so. You are obliged to either have your vaccinations up to date OR to have exempt status. The exempt status is for people with a medicalcontraindication, religous ojection OR conscientous objection. WHat is compulsory is having vaccination paperwork (such as the conscientous objection form, which requires you to have seen a doctor or nurse and told them that you aren't going to be vaccinated).
     
  15. Dr Worm

    Dr Worm Regular Member

    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Huh: is it just me, or is it a disadvantage to know about the issue?

    I feel like I provided more of a defence for the current Australian vaccination policy than much thoughtful examination of the issue.

    Can we have a new question? This one is worrying me :)
     
  16. Nealie

    Nealie Auckland MBchB

    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Or what????? You talked about the govt removing children from their homes in the event of non vaccination???????? That is kinda whacky. That's not what compulsory vax means in relation to public schooling. That is the point I was making. Of course you can't FORCE people to vax (as your reply seems to mis-suggest). No one is suggesting that. But the govt can refuse access to school services for those that dont.

    I don't mean to labour the point, but I thought your reply read as misleading in regard to what the consequences under a compulsory vax'ing system are.

    You're not vax'd, you can't go to school. That's it. Nothing more.
     
  17. Dr Worm

    Dr Worm Regular Member

    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Sorry Nealie, I think I wasn't clear, and I confused the point.

    You mean that compulsory vaccination would mean not being able to attend public school unless you were vaccinated, and there would be no conscientous objection exemption?

    ANd I thought you meant that that was the current situation in AUstralia.

    I guess I was trying to make the (strictly hypothetical) point that we do allow parents wishes to be disregarded (by force) in some instances, but that while you could make the ethical argument for doing this with vaccination, it wouldn't be feasable. It was maybe not the most relevant approach, admittedly.
     
  18. Dr Worm

    Dr Worm Regular Member

    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
  19. Dr Worm

    Dr Worm Regular Member

    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    wikipaedia:
    States in the U.S. mandate immunization, or obtaining exemption, before children enroll in public school. Exemptions are typically for people who have compromised immune systems, allergies to the components used in vaccinations, or strongly-held objections. All states but West Virginia and Mississippi allow religious exemptions, and twenty states allow parents to cite personal or philosophical objections. A widespread and growing number of parents falsely claim religious and philosophical beliefs to get vaccination exemptions, and an increasing number of disease outbreaks have come from communities where herd immunity was lost due to insufficient vaccination.[10]
    The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) notes the dilemma faced by many parents in that vaccines are a very safe and important health intervention, but are neither risk-free nor 100% effective. It advises physicians to respect the refusal of parents to vaccinate their child after adequate discussion, unless the child is put at significant risk of harm (e.g., during an epidemic, or after a deep and contaminated puncture wound); under such circumstances, the AAP states that parental refusal of immunization constitutes a form of medical neglect and should be reported to state child protective services agencies.[11]


    There seems to be some confusion about what constitues "compulsory".
    (NOw I'm just procrastinating to avoid the washing up...)
     
  20. Season

    Season Emeritus MSO Staff Emeritus

    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Matt is a bit busy so I'm going to chip in some feedback. Feel free to disagree, we all have slightly different approaches to these questions.



    Dr worm, as someone who enjoys this topic, I really enjoyed this response, so thanks.

    However this resposne is too long for an interview. The reality is that you wouldn't be able to say all of this and you would have been cut off before you'd had a chance to answer the question. You clearly know the topic well, however this doesn't mean anything if you don't end up answering the question.

    What you want to do is to identify the issues, answer the question, elaborate on the issues that back your answer, acknowledge the ones that don't, say why they're bad, then answer the question again.

    I'm not too worried though as your answer, in its entirety, answered the question well. You accurately identified the crux of the question that was public ethics vs individual ethics and how they infringe upon each other.

    So although you should cut your answer in half, well done :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page