Practice Interview Question Thread

[Sir]

Hey everyone, I'm going to have a go at this rather interesting MMI scenario

You are walking along a dust road in the middle of the Wild West. Suddenly a scream catches your attention and you race towards it. Upon reaching closer to the voice, you see two sets of rail tracks, and a person tied to each track. On one track, is a small boy, whilst on the other track is a female. Beside the tracks you see a lever, which changes the track’s path for the train to travel on. You also notice a big brown train that is travelling fast towards the boy, so fast that by the time you are done saving one person, the other will have died.

1. Who will you save, if you choose to do so?
With people's lives at stake, this situation is definitely an extremely difficult one with a clear opportunity cost where if one persons life is saved, the others will be lost. I believe in this situation, the first thing I would do before choosing is deduce whether there is any way out of the situation for example stopping the train or if there was a bystander who could save the other individual. This would be my first option. However I do definitely acknowledge the fact that I may be forced to choose one over another. Given urgency of both is theoretically the same, I would assess which person I was more capable of saving. This could mean the type of knot that was tied, or if I could more easily carry the small boy away as opposed to the female. Where this particular criteria also turned out to be approximately equal for both parties I would save the person I was in closer proximity to, as this would mean I would less likely endanger my own life as well as have a greater chance of saving them by getting off the track faster.

2. Would you change your decision if you knew from hindsight that the mother was pregnant? Discuss?
Where I knew the mother was pregnant, I believe for the most part, this would not change the course of action I would take, unless I was able to deduce a lot more information about its nature. Firstly, the small boy could be just as capable of growing up to become a father in the future and a parent in the same capacity, therefore simply the fact that he is not one now does not meant we should assume this could not be a possibility. Also, although unlikely the pregnant female could potentially be seeking for an abortion and the person the child becomes is ultimately another question definitely that must be asked. From a utilitarian perspective, it would be plausible to choose two over one counting the baby as a human being in the near future, however with the factors outlined above as well as considerations such as urgency of the situation or capability to save one individual as opposed to another all are crucial as well.

3. Would you change your decision if the boy on the tracks was the child of the female’s? Discuss?
I believe in this situation like the ones highlighted above, a key principle to uphold is to be as impartial as possible especially when there are many details about their future lives and situations that simply are not known in this instance. One argument in this instance could be to reason that parents would always prioritize their children over themselves, using this as a justification to save the boy rather than the female. However I believe this is merely a generalization or stereotype and it could be possible that the parent sees her life and her child's as equal. Given the relative urgency of the situation, there is likely insufficient time to ask the parent what she would like to choose (the time spent here could easily be used to save the other person), I would not let this factor impact my objective decision making and stick to the criteria that were specified above in deciding who I would attempt to save first.

 

[whys]

(Disclaimer: yr 12)
This is just some food for thought, but you could also talk about how the train might be a metaphor for death, and discuss whether it is your place to control who dies and who lives and instead, letting the train kill the boy, meaning the female lives without you doing anything. You don't have to make this your final answer but including as part of your discussion may make your answer stronger, as you could talk about why you think you wouldn't let the train take its current course of path and why you would change it instead of letting it kill the boy.

 

[Scorpion]

Hey everyone, I'm going to have a go at this rather interesting MMI scenario

You are walking along a dust road in the middle of the Wild West. Suddenly a scream catches your attention and you race towards it. Upon reaching closer to the voice, you see two sets of rail tracks, and a person tied to each track. On one track, is a small boy, whilst on the other track is a female. Beside the tracks you see a lever, which changes the track’s path for the train to travel on. You also notice a big brown train that is travelling fast towards the boy, so fast that by the time you are done saving one person, the other will have died.

1. Who will you save, if you choose to do so?
With people's lives at stake, this situation is definitely an extremely difficult one with a clear opportunity cost where if one persons life is saved, the others will be lost. I believe in this situation, the first thing I would do before choosing is deduce whether there is any way out of the situation for example stopping the train or if there was a bystander who could save the other individual. This would be my first option. However I do definitely acknowledge the fact that I may be forced to choose one over another. Given urgency of both is theoretically the same, I would assess which person I was more capable of saving. This could mean the type of knot that was tied, or if I could more easily carry the small boy away as opposed to the female. Where this particular criteria also turned out to be approximately equal for both parties I would save the person I was in closer proximity to, as this would mean I would less likely endanger my own life as well as have a greater chance of saving them by getting off the track faster.

2. Would you change your decision if you knew from hindsight that the mother was pregnant? Discuss?
Where I knew the mother was pregnant, I believe for the most part, this would not change the course of action I would take, unless I was able to deduce a lot more information about its nature. Firstly, the small boy could be just as capable of growing up to become a father in the future and a parent in the same capacity, therefore simply the fact that he is not one now does not meant we should assume this could not be a possibility. Also, although unlikely the pregnant female could potentially be seeking for an abortion and the person the child becomes is ultimately another question definitely that must be asked. From a utilitarian perspective, it would be plausible to choose two over one counting the baby as a human being in the near future, however with the factors outlined above as well as considerations such as urgency of the situation or capability to save one individual as opposed to another all are crucial as well.

3. Would you change your decision if the boy on the tracks was the child of the female’s? Discuss?
I believe in this situation like the ones highlighted above, a key principle to uphold is to be as impartial as possible especially when there are many details about their future lives and situations that simply are not known in this instance. One argument in this instance could be to reason that parents would always prioritize their children over themselves, using this as a justification to save the boy rather than the female. However I believe this is merely a generalization or stereotype and it could be possible that the parent sees her life and her child's as equal. Given the relative urgency of the situation, there is likely insufficient time to ask the parent what she would like to choose (the time spent here could easily be used to save the other person), I would not let this factor impact my objective decision making and stick to the criteria that were specified above in deciding who I would attempt to save first.

Disclaimer: yr 12

I may not be completely understanding the question but if the train is going towards one person and there is a lever to change its path, you should have quite a bit of time to save the other person, regardless of your proximity to them, as the train is not on their track at all. Thus, the type of knot/proximity/weight of the person seems less relevant to the question at hand. I guess you could probably argue there could be a second train coming down their track soon after, but you could just divert that train using the lever. Just something to think about, you could still probably mention it.

Otherwise, I think the answer was really good. Maybe discuss the age of the people. Chances are based on average lifespans, the boy will have more years to live than the mother. You could discuss whether and why you believe this is an important consideration or not (even if you don't believe this is an important consideration, you can still talk about it in the interview as it shows your reasoning for not considering it). In part 3, you mentioned that it would take to long to ask the mother what she wants, but if she's already screaming for you to save her child while you are running towards the lever, do you respect her decision? Is she in an acceptable state of mind to be making such a decision? If you don't respect her decision and let her child die, what are the potential consequences for you, the lever-puller? This can include the emotional toll it takes on you. On the other hand, if you pull the lever and the mother dies, is that murder, because you changed the course of the train? Would this affect you more than if you let the train run its course? How could it affect the boy, for example, knowing that he was saved in favour of his mother?

I think a similar question was discussed earlier in the thread so take a look at the comments for that too for some extra suggestions.

 

[velvetthundr]

Hi everyone, I just took a shot at the scenario below, please offer feedback as I'm not very experienced with MMI questions. Thanks!!

(disclaimer: I didn't time myself when writing this, I'm just trying to develop an approach towards these questions first before focusing on the timing)

Dr Olive looks after a group of elderly patients of a certain ethnicity at an elderly home. He gives them injections of vitamin C to treat their arthritis because he believes that patients expect injections from doctors. He doesn’t prescribe them the medications that are normally given to patients with arthritis because he believes them to be unsafe for the elderly.

a) What do you think of this?
I think that Dr. Olive’s actions may have a negative influence on the health of his patients, namely withholding prescription medication from patients. As such, the medical pillar of maleficence is a concern here, as Dr. Olive keeping medication from elderly patients with arthritis might harm them or accelerate their condition. Furthermore, we don’t know what effect the injection of Vitamin C will have on the patients, or if it will benefit them at all. The actions of Dr. Olive are based on his personal opinion and while doctors are supposed to rely on their professional opinions to diagnose and treat patients, I think Dr. Olive’s biases towards certain types of treatment may be affecting his professional judgment.

b) What are the issues?
There are multiple issues of consideration in this scenario. Firstly, in the eyes of Dr. Olive, he is acting towards the best interests of his patients by administering treatment that he believes will benefit them the most, and acting as a doctor should. However, as mentioned prior, his biases may be affecting his judgment. For example, all patients are elderly and of a certain ethnicity; it’s important to consider the possibility that Dr. Olive may have stigma towards/against the elderly, or people of this ethnicity. Furthermore, it is stated that Dr. Olive believes that he believes that patients expect injections from doctors and that he believes arthritis medication to be unsafe for the elderly. As far as we know, his first belief could be unfounded unless the patients themselves expressed their desire for injections; the second belief is definitely unfounded, as medications are required to undergo extensive testing for negative effects on patients. We also know that the medications mentioned are normally administered to those with arthritis, suggesting that they have no negative or major side effects on the target population. Finally, we don’t know if Dr. Olive has made his patients aware of his views and treatment of them, or obtained consent from them. From this, there are 2 major issues visible in the scenario: first, the conflict between beneficence (Dr. Olive doing what he thinks is best for the patients) versus possible maleficence and lack of informed consent, and second, the unknown basis of Dr. Olive’s beliefs and possible factors affecting his judgment.

c) How would you feel if you were his patient?
If I were his patient and I were aware of how his beliefs affected his treatment of me, I’d feel confused and fearful about how my own health might be affected. I would want to confront Dr. Olive about his treatment of me and other patients and gather as much information as I could regarding the effectiveness of his current treatment. I’d find out why he believes normal arthritis medications are harmful towards the elderly and perhaps seek a second opinion from a different doctor while doing my own research about Dr. Olive’s treatments. If I felt that my age/ethnicity were affecting the way Dr. Olive was treating me, I'd request to change the doctor in charge of me.

d) What would you say to Dr Olive about his treatment?
It would depend on my role in the situation. If I were a medical student, I would politely raise questions to Dr. Olive about his treatments in a respectful manner. However, I am not qualified as a medical student to directly challenge his opinions; as such, I would keep my position as a student in mind while also seeking the opinions of other doctors in the matter and raising concerns with them as well. If I were a doctor, I would confront Dr. Olive in a more direct manner while still maintaining an appropriately respectful tone. As a qualified doctor, my medical opinion would have more weight than if I were a medical student, and I could professionally offer my opinion on the matter. Even so, I would keep in mind that the elderly patients are still Dr. Olive’s and seek the opinions of my colleagues as well regarding concerns towards his treatment.

 

[kotoloper]

Hi everyone, I just took a shot at the scenario below, please offer feedback as I'm not very experienced with MMI questions. Thanks!!

(disclaimer: I didn't time myself when writing this, I'm just trying to develop an approach towards these questions first before focusing on the timing)

Dr Olive looks after a group of elderly patients of a certain ethnicity at an elderly home. He gives them injections of vitamin C to treat their arthritis because he believes that patients expect injections from doctors. He doesn’t prescribe them the medications that are normally given to patients with arthritis because he believes them to be unsafe for the elderly.

a) What do you think of this?
I think that Dr. Olive’s actions may have a negative influence on the health of his patients, namely withholding prescription medication from patients. As such, the medical pillar of maleficence is a concern here, as Dr. Olive keeping medication from elderly patients with arthritis might harm them or accelerate their condition. Furthermore, we don’t know what effect the injection of Vitamin C will have on the patients, or if it will benefit them at all. The actions of Dr. Olive are based on his personal opinion and while doctors are supposed to rely on their professional opinions to diagnose and treat patients, I think Dr. Olive’s biases towards certain types of treatment may be affecting his professional judgment.

b) What are the issues?
There are multiple issues of consideration in this scenario. Firstly, in the eyes of Dr. Olive, he is acting towards the best interests of his patients by administering treatment that he believes will benefit them the most, and acting as a doctor should. However, as mentioned prior, his biases may be affecting his judgment. For example, all patients are elderly and of a certain ethnicity; it’s important to consider the possibility that Dr. Olive may have stigma towards/against the elderly, or people of this ethnicity. Furthermore, it is stated that Dr. Olive believes that he believes that patients expect injections from doctors and that he believes arthritis medication to be unsafe for the elderly. As far as we know, his first belief could be unfounded unless the patients themselves expressed their desire for injections; the second belief is definitely unfounded, as medications are required to undergo extensive testing for negative effects on patients. We also know that the medications mentioned are normally administered to those with arthritis, suggesting that they have no negative or major side effects on the target population. Finally, we don’t know if Dr. Olive has made his patients aware of his views and treatment of them, or obtained consent from them. From this, there are 2 major issues visible in the scenario: first, the conflict between beneficence (Dr. Olive doing what he thinks is best for the patients) versus possible maleficence and lack of informed consent, and second, the unknown basis of Dr. Olive’s beliefs and possible factors affecting his judgment.

c) How would you feel if you were his patient?
If I were his patient and I were aware of how his beliefs affected his treatment of me, I’d feel confused and fearful about how my own health might be affected. I would want to confront Dr. Olive about his treatment of me and other patients and gather as much information as I could regarding the effectiveness of his current treatment. I’d find out why he believes normal arthritis medications are harmful towards the elderly and perhaps seek a second opinion from a different doctor while doing my own research about Dr. Olive’s treatments. If I felt that my age/ethnicity were affecting the way Dr. Olive was treating me, I'd request to change the doctor in charge of me.

d) What would you say to Dr Olive about his treatment?
It would depend on my role in the situation. If I were a medical student, I would politely raise questions to Dr. Olive about his treatments in a respectful manner. However, I am not qualified as a medical student to directly challenge his opinions; as such, I would keep my position as a student in mind while also seeking the opinions of other doctors in the matter and raising concerns with them as well. If I were a doctor, I would confront Dr. Olive in a more direct manner while still maintaining an appropriately respectful tone. As a qualified doctor, my medical opinion would have more weight than if I were a medical student, and I could professionally offer my opinion on the matter. Even so, I would keep in mind that the elderly patients are still Dr. Olive’s and seek the opinions of my colleagues as well regarding concerns towards his treatment.

Disclaimer: year 12 student with little experience; take what I say with a grain of salt haha

I quite like the structure and flow of your response personally - it goes onto each issue quite nicely. In regard to part b wherein you suggest that he is treating them based on what will benefit them the most, I'm not entirely sure this follows on from the prompt; 'He gives them injections of vitamin C to treat their arthritis because he believes that patients expect injections from doctors'. From this, it sounds like to me that he is adhering to the patient expectations of getting injections from doctors, rather than giving them the injections because he believes that it is beneficial for their health; this could just be my interpretation of it though, I'm not too sure! Also, as he does not believe in the normal medication to treat arthritis which as you said undergoes extensive testing to ensure that they are safe, this can also branch into his treatment of other diseases and what medication he is prescribing there; this could be something to explore in terms of doctors having to provide effective treatments based on the best available evidence. I also believe you could've explored the issues of the unknown consent from the patients; are they aware that they are not receiving the normal medication? Did they consent to the vitamin C on the basis of the doctor's beliefs without knowing the basis of his judgement? You touched on it, but I believe there is room to go more in-depth! For part d, apart from just saying you would raise the issue, perhaps raise the previous questions you've touched on; ask him if he thinks the vitamin C is the best course of treatment, why he is against the normal medications, is he aware of any side-effects, etc - of course, as you said, this depends on your role. I like how you explored getting advice from other colleagues . Basically, just go further and think about what to explicitly say to him!

 

[Scorpion]

Hi everyone, I just took a shot at the scenario below, please offer feedback as I'm not very experienced with MMI questions. Thanks!!

(disclaimer: I didn't time myself when writing this, I'm just trying to develop an approach towards these questions first before focusing on the timing)

Dr Olive looks after a group of elderly patients of a certain ethnicity at an elderly home. He gives them injections of vitamin C to treat their arthritis because he believes that patients expect injections from doctors. He doesn’t prescribe them the medications that are normally given to patients with arthritis because he believes them to be unsafe for the elderly.

a) What do you think of this?
I think that Dr. Olive’s actions may have a negative influence on the health of his patients, namely withholding prescription medication from patients. As such, the medical pillar of maleficence is a concern here, as Dr. Olive keeping medication from elderly patients with arthritis might harm them or accelerate their condition. Furthermore, we don’t know what effect the injection of Vitamin C will have on the patients, or if it will benefit them at all. The actions of Dr. Olive are based on his personal opinion and while doctors are supposed to rely on their professional opinions to diagnose and treat patients, I think Dr. Olive’s biases towards certain types of treatment may be affecting his professional judgment.

b) What are the issues?
There are multiple issues of consideration in this scenario. Firstly, in the eyes of Dr. Olive, he is acting towards the best interests of his patients by administering treatment that he believes will benefit them the most, and acting as a doctor should. However, as mentioned prior, his biases may be affecting his judgment. For example, all patients are elderly and of a certain ethnicity; it’s important to consider the possibility that Dr. Olive may have stigma towards/against the elderly, or people of this ethnicity. Furthermore, it is stated that Dr. Olive believes that he believes that patients expect injections from doctors and that he believes arthritis medication to be unsafe for the elderly. As far as we know, his first belief could be unfounded unless the patients themselves expressed their desire for injections; the second belief is definitely unfounded, as medications are required to undergo extensive testing for negative effects on patients. We also know that the medications mentioned are normally administered to those with arthritis, suggesting that they have no negative or major side effects on the target population. Finally, we don’t know if Dr. Olive has made his patients aware of his views and treatment of them, or obtained consent from them. From this, there are 2 major issues visible in the scenario: first, the conflict between beneficence (Dr. Olive doing what he thinks is best for the patients) versus possible maleficence and lack of informed consent, and second, the unknown basis of Dr. Olive’s beliefs and possible factors affecting his judgment.

c) How would you feel if you were his patient?
If I were his patient and I were aware of how his beliefs affected his treatment of me, I’d feel confused and fearful about how my own health might be affected. I would want to confront Dr. Olive about his treatment of me and other patients and gather as much information as I could regarding the effectiveness of his current treatment. I’d find out why he believes normal arthritis medications are harmful towards the elderly and perhaps seek a second opinion from a different doctor while doing my own research about Dr. Olive’s treatments. If I felt that my age/ethnicity were affecting the way Dr. Olive was treating me, I'd request to change the doctor in charge of me.

d) What would you say to Dr Olive about his treatment?
It would depend on my role in the situation. If I were a medical student, I would politely raise questions to Dr. Olive about his treatments in a respectful manner. However, I am not qualified as a medical student to directly challenge his opinions; as such, I would keep my position as a student in mind while also seeking the opinions of other doctors in the matter and raising concerns with them as well. If I were a doctor, I would confront Dr. Olive in a more direct manner while still maintaining an appropriately respectful tone. As a qualified doctor, my medical opinion would have more weight than if I were a medical student, and I could professionally offer my opinion on the matter. Even so, I would keep in mind that the elderly patients are still Dr. Olive’s and seek the opinions of my colleagues as well regarding concerns towards his treatment.

Disclaimer: yr 12

I agree with kotoloper 's suggestions. The only other thing I would add is in part c) where you talk about requesting a new doctor. You could talk about the vulnerable position you are in as a member of an elderly home who may be served by that doctor alone. In this case, you may feel helpless as there is little alternative to seeing this doctor, unless you could either convince the staff to bring in a different doctor or have somebody you know take you out of the home to see a doctor. I'm not very informed on how medical services are provided to elderly homes, so this comment may be irrelevant.

I thought your answer was very detailed. Well done!

 

[Crow]

Can I just say a big thank you to everyone that has got on board and embraced the spirit of the thread in giving feedback to others - great to see

 

[Sokka]

Hey everyone, I'm going to have a go at this rather interesting MMI scenario

You are walking along a dust road in the middle of the Wild West. Suddenly a scream catches your attention and you race towards it. Upon reaching closer to the voice, you see two sets of rail tracks, and a person tied to each track. On one track, is a small boy, whilst on the other track is a female. Beside the tracks you see a lever, which changes the track’s path for the train to travel on. You also notice a big brown train that is travelling fast towards the boy, so fast that by the time you are done saving one person, the other will have died.

1. Who will you save, if you choose to do so?
With people's lives at stake, this situation is definitely an extremely difficult one with a clear opportunity cost where if one persons life is saved, the others will be lost. I believe in this situation, the first thing I would do before choosing is deduce whether there is any way out of the situation for example stopping the train or if there was a bystander who could save the other individual. This would be my first option. However I do definitely acknowledge the fact that I may be forced to choose one over another. Given urgency of both is theoretically the same, I would assess which person I was more capable of saving. This could mean the type of knot that was tied, or if I could more easily carry the small boy away as opposed to the female. Where this particular criteria also turned out to be approximately equal for both parties I would save the person I was in closer proximity to, as this would mean I would less likely endanger my own life as well as have a greater chance of saving them by getting off the track faster.

2. Would you change your decision if you knew from hindsight that the mother was pregnant? Discuss?
Where I knew the mother was pregnant, I believe for the most part, this would not change the course of action I would take, unless I was able to deduce a lot more information about its nature. Firstly, the small boy could be just as capable of growing up to become a father in the future and a parent in the same capacity, therefore simply the fact that he is not one now does not meant we should assume this could not be a possibility. Also, although unlikely the pregnant female could potentially be seeking for an abortion and the person the child becomes is ultimately another question definitely that must be asked. From a utilitarian perspective, it would be plausible to choose two over one counting the baby as a human being in the near future, however with the factors outlined above as well as considerations such as urgency of the situation or capability to save one individual as opposed to another all are crucial as well.

3. Would you change your decision if the boy on the tracks was the child of the female’s? Discuss?
I believe in this situation like the ones highlighted above, a key principle to uphold is to be as impartial as possible especially when there are many details about their future lives and situations that simply are not known in this instance. One argument in this instance could be to reason that parents would always prioritize their children over themselves, using this as a justification to save the boy rather than the female. However I believe this is merely a generalization or stereotype and it could be possible that the parent sees her life and her child's as equal. Given the relative urgency of the situation, there is likely insufficient time to ask the parent what she would like to choose (the time spent here could easily be used to save the other person), I would not let this factor impact my objective decision making and stick to the criteria that were specified above in deciding who I would attempt to save first.

Everything you said was perfect imo. I know you touched on this when you spoke about the boy growing up, but you could maybe discuss the the benefit of saving one life over another. Specifically, who will live the longest (in the best case scenario the boy would live a long and fulfilling life so it would be a strong argument to choose him as this has a lower OC than saving someone who may live say for 15 more years). To be clear, I do not mean their job or status in society.

 

[kotoloper]

Hey guys, had a crack at this question. I actually have no idea about the legal implications of doctors being dishonest about a patient's condition for them being able to get their medication. Also not sure if I discussed ethical implications in enough depth, but for the life of me my brain is not working right now and I'm drawing blanks. Any feedback appreciated!

You are a doctor and your patient has been taking pain medication for his condition which caused numerous side effects. A new drug came out which is safer and the patient seems to be managing better and can almost function normally that he has considered starting work. However, this drug is expensive and the patient is concerned about affording this drug. The government subsidises this drug to patients with epilepsy only. If you write on the prescription that the patient has epilepsy, he can get the drug subsidised. What would you do? What are the ethical implications? What should be the consequences if the doctor wrote the prescription as having epilepsy?

I would explore alternative services available to support the patient in affording the drug, such as looking at the patient’s insurance policy or looking into health-care providers. It would be wrong to write on the prescription that the patient has epilepsy if he does not. Writing it would mean that the patient has greater access to the drug, which has aided significantly in improving his health, and ensure that he can begin to perform normal functions such as going back to work. However, this would be lying and ethically wrong, and would undermine the transparency of my practice. If I make an allowance once to help this patient, who’s to say I won’t do it again and wrongfully prescribe medication in the future? By being dishonest about the patient’s condition, I fail to display a standard of behaviour that warrants the trust and respect of the community, and also infringe about the practice of maintaining adequate and truthful records. Although this method would benefit the patient and address beneficence, there are other ways to gain better support and access for the patient without being dishonest. Furthermore, although the patient would be grateful, the act of writing it could also undermine their perspective of me as a trustworthy and reliable health practitioner, damaging our patient-doctor relationship. Furthermore, the patient could spread the word that I had helped them get medication subsidised wrongfully and other patients could come to my practice believing that I would help them dishonestly to get access to cheaper medication. This would lower the community’s respect for the healthcare profession as a whole, undermining transparency and accountability. I would be reprimanded as a result of my actions and could get my prescribing rights revoked.

 

[Cain]

Hey everyone, I'm going to have a go at this rather interesting MMI scenario

You are walking along a dust road in the middle of the Wild West. Suddenly a scream catches your attention and you race towards it. Upon reaching closer to the voice, you see two sets of rail tracks, and a person tied to each track. On one track, is a small boy, whilst on the other track is a female. Beside the tracks you see a lever, which changes the track’s path for the train to travel on. You also notice a big brown train that is travelling fast towards the boy, so fast that by the time you are done saving one person, the other will have died.

1. Who will you save, if you choose to do so?
With people's lives at stake, this situation is definitely an extremely difficult one with a clear opportunity cost where if one persons life is saved, the others will be lost. I believe in this situation, the first thing I would do before choosing is deduce whether there is any way out of the situation for example stopping the train or if there was a bystander who could save the other individual. This would be my first option. However I do definitely acknowledge the fact that I may be forced to choose one over another. Given urgency of both is theoretically the same, I would assess which person I was more capable of saving. This could mean the type of knot that was tied, or if I could more easily carry the small boy away as opposed to the female. Where this particular criteria also turned out to be approximately equal for both parties I would save the person I was in closer proximity to, as this would mean I would less likely endanger my own life as well as have a greater chance of saving them by getting off the track faster.

2. Would you change your decision if you knew from hindsight that the mother was pregnant? Discuss?
Where I knew the mother was pregnant, I believe for the most part, this would not change the course of action I would take, unless I was able to deduce a lot more information about its nature. Firstly, the small boy could be just as capable of growing up to become a father in the future and a parent in the same capacity, therefore simply the fact that he is not one now does not meant we should assume this could not be a possibility. Also, although unlikely the pregnant female could potentially be seeking for an abortion and the person the child becomes is ultimately another question definitely that must be asked. From a utilitarian perspective, it would be plausible to choose two over one counting the baby as a human being in the near future, however with the factors outlined above as well as considerations such as urgency of the situation or capability to save one individual as opposed to another all are crucial as well.

3. Would you change your decision if the boy on the tracks was the child of the female’s? Discuss?
I believe in this situation like the ones highlighted above, a key principle to uphold is to be as impartial as possible especially when there are many details about their future lives and situations that simply are not known in this instance. One argument in this instance could be to reason that parents would always prioritize their children over themselves, using this as a justification to save the boy rather than the female. However I believe this is merely a generalization or stereotype and it could be possible that the parent sees her life and her child's as equal. Given the relative urgency of the situation, there is likely insufficient time to ask the parent what she would like to choose (the time spent here could easily be used to save the other person), I would not let this factor impact my objective decision making and stick to the criteria that were specified above in deciding who I would attempt to save first.

This sounds like a poorly worded question because if the train is bearing down on the boy, and I dedicate the time available to jut save the boy (by removing him from the tracks), by default the woman will be saved as she was on a separate set of tracks and was in no harm to begin with (no where does it say I can't save one of them by by untying them). Whilst use of the level is perhaps implied...its not forced.

 

[Cain]

This sounds like a poorly worded question because if the train is bearing down on the boy, and I dedicate the time available to jut save the boy (by removing him from the tracks), by default the woman will be saved as she was on a separate set of tracks and was in no harm to begin with (no where does it say I can't save one of them by by untying them). Whilst use of the level is perhaps implied...its not forced.

**not suggesting you came up with the question btw...it's just a comment on the question itself

 

[velvetthundr]

Hi, I didn't really know how to approach this question but I answered it as best as I could Please offer advice and feedback, thanks!!

Name some of the current public health concerns in Australia. Discuss one in depth and suggest ways to address it.

There are numerous public health concerns in Australia today, including the prevalence of chronic cardiovascular diseases, limited healthcare access to specific groups of people and how alcohol is ingrained in Australian culture today. However, the most prominent healthcare crisis today is the COVID-19 virus. The virus has had a vast global impact with millions sick or dead, and Australia is no exception. Because of the highly infectious nature of the virus, the government is focused on containing the virus in each state, and many allied health professionals are being overworked in hospitals with limited protective equipment and resources. Doctors and nurses across the nation are exposed and vulnerable to the virus as a result, leading to health professionals falling ill to the same pathogen that plagues their patients.

There are three major issues that Australia faces regarding the COVID-19 virus right now: the vulnerability of doctors and nurses to the virus in hospitals, the overworking of medical professionals and the lack of an effective cure. In order to combat the first issue, I would suggest seeking aid from other more stable nations by requesting personal protective equipment and other resources that patients may need. Additional measures should also be taken to sterilize hospitals and wards in order to protect nurses, doctors and the patients. Furthermore, as Australian doctors and nurses are exhausted from the virus, I’d request international medical assistance to replenish the allied health workforce; medical students could also be called into action to assist in hospitals in a similar fashion to what students from other countries are doing. Finally, an effective cure in the form of a vaccine is currently being developed by the University of Queensland, as well as the University of Oxford overseas. In this respect, the government has already taken a large step in the right direction by signing a deal with UQ to receive the vaccine if it passes safety trials. However, I would suggest that the government offer more funding and assistance to UQ in hopes of accelerating vaccine development.

 

[Crow]

The train question is a nice thought experiment but it’s very likely that it won’t come up in an interview at an Australian uni.

 

[whys]

Hi, I didn't really know how to approach this question but I answered it as best as I could Please offer advice and feedback, thanks!!

Name some of the current public health concerns in Australia. Discuss one in depth and suggest ways to address it.

There are numerous public health concerns in Australia today, including the prevalence of chronic cardiovascular diseases, limited healthcare access to specific groups of people and how alcohol is ingrained in Australian culture today. However, the most prominent healthcare crisis today is the COVID-19 virus. The virus has had a vast global impact with millions sick or dead, and Australia is no exception. Because of the highly infectious nature of the virus, the government is focused on containing the virus in each state, and many allied health professionals are being overworked in hospitals with limited protective equipment and resources. Doctors and nurses across the nation are exposed and vulnerable to the virus as a result, leading to health professionals falling ill to the same pathogen that plagues their patients.

There are three major issues that Australia faces regarding the COVID-19 virus right now: the vulnerability of doctors and nurses to the virus in hospitals, the overworking of medical professionals and the lack of an effective cure. In order to combat the first issue, I would suggest seeking aid from other more stable nations by requesting personal protective equipment and other resources that patients may need. Additional measures should also be taken to sterilize hospitals and wards in order to protect nurses, doctors and the patients. Furthermore, as Australian doctors and nurses are exhausted from the virus, I’d request international medical assistance to replenish the allied health workforce; medical students could also be called into action to assist in hospitals in a similar fashion to what students from other countries are doing. Finally, an effective cure in the form of a vaccine is currently being developed by the University of Queensland, as well as the University of Oxford overseas. In this respect, the government has already taken a large step in the right direction by signing a deal with UQ to receive the vaccine if it passes safety trials. However, I would suggest that the government offer more funding and assistance to UQ in hopes of accelerating vaccine development.

Disclaimer: year 12
I like your answer. Just a suggestion - you can also briefly mention the growing impact of anti-mask, anti-lockdown supporters that could be endangering the health of the community and how there has been a loss of trust in medical science as people grow impatient with regards to a future vaccine and by being told contradicting things from different people. I also don't think there are any 'stable' nations available to donate some of their resources to us, but I'm not too sure if that matters too much in your answer! I think getting medical students in the action would be more of a burden since they are essentially 'untrained', but that's my opinion and I'm not sure if that would matter too much in an interview answer.

 

[cocodreams]

You are a doctor and your patient has been taking pain medication for his condition which caused numerous side effects. A new drug came out which is safer and the patient seems to be managing better and can almost function normally that he has considered starting work. However, this drug is expensive and the patient is concerned about affording this drug. The government subsidises this drug to patients with epilepsy only. If you write on the prescription that the patient has epilepsy, he can get the drug subsidised. What would you do? What are the ethical implications? What should be the consequences if the doctor wrote the prescription as having epilepsy?

With this question, I have a small query - has the patient started managing better with the old drug or has he consumed the new drug and then started faring better? Or is this not a really relevant aspect of the question ?

 

[watermelona]

You are a doctor and your patient has been taking pain medication for his condition which caused numerous side effects. A new drug came out which is safer and the patient seems to be managing better and can almost function normally that he has considered starting work. However, this drug is expensive and the patient is concerned about affording this drug. The government subsidises this drug to patients with epilepsy only. If you write on the prescription that the patient has epilepsy, he can get the drug subsidised. What would you do? What are the ethical implications? What should be the consequences if the doctor wrote the prescription as having epilepsy?

With this question, I have a small query - has the patient started managing better with the old drug or has he consumed the new drug and then started faring better? Or is this not a really relevant aspect of the question ?

not completely sure but i think that he is managing better with the new drug

 

[Sir]

This thread is looking great so far with all the feedback! Here's my attempt at this ethical/scenario based question. As usual, all feedback is appreciated.

Josh is a 29 year old patient who is a regular patient of yours. Josh was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS 3 years ago, and today he has come in for his regular GP checks. Upon questioning you find out that Josh has been sexually active with someone approximately 6 months ago. He has also confessed that he has not told his partner that he is HIV positive and has also confessed to not using contraception too. You insist that Josh should take better precaution during intercourse by using protection but completely ignores your advice saying that protection ruins the “experience” for him.

1. What should you , as the GP do next?
This situation is definitely an extremely sensitive especially considering the ignorance of the physicians advice. As with many situations like these, I believe my first instinct would be to ensure the health and safety of all individuals involved. Firstly this would initially involve gauging some of the details of this situation including how often he has been sexually active and with how many different partners during this time, as well as explaining to him the ramifications his actions could have on these individuals. Additionally I would check with legal/hospital guidelines surrounding situations like this. Then this would mean potentially first checking up on Josh and ensuring that his condition is improving even given this new discovery followed by contacting the partner recommending she would get tested. Although confidentiality is hugely essential, I believe the health and safety should be prioritized given the potentially fatal consequences of HIV/AIDS and would therefore as difficult as would be, recommend they see a physician.

2. Confidentiality is an important aspect of maintaining the therapeutic relationship between patient and doctor. What are the possible ramifications associated with the breaking of confidentiality.
There are many potentially detrimental impacts of breaking confidentiality. Firstly this could bring a breakdown of the doctor patient relationship as implied in the question, where the often sensitive information that is kept confidential, if exposed, could mean patients and the wider community are less willing to share their health problems with physicians. This especially applies with conditions such as mental health or STI's which have often quite a taboo around them. Secondly, breaking confidentiality could bring great emotional and mental stress towards patients for example through unconscious biases in the workplace, or merely just personal hardship in getting some of their private conditions exposed to others. This is simply the result of privacy being an extension of feeling safe.

3. List some situations, where you think confidentiality should be broken (if any).
Although confidentiality is a hugely important pillar to maintaining smooth relationships, there are some instances where the prioritization of other factors may take precedence. One such situation is where the health and safety of patients or other individuals are jeopardized such as in the example above. Here I believe the priorities of the medical system should lie in ensuring health standards for all of society and if these would be endangered eg unprotected sex by a HIV/AIDS patient, I believe breaking confidentiality is justified. Additionally, I believe confidentiality can be broken ONLY with the patients consent under various circumstances such as for the sake of science, or to family members and other relatives where it would normally be kept secret as the patient may genuinely want to share some aspects of their treatment and improvement.

4. You find out that Josh’s partner who he had the relationship with is HIV positive as well. She breaks down in front of you. What should you do next?
I would initially offer her consolation eg offer her tissues and comfort her, and if necessary give her some time to recover/book a later appointment if she is not in the correct mindset to discuss potential treatment plans. I would tell her I am sorry and inform her this is not her fault. Following this, I would follow the ordinary procedures surrounding the course of action when an individual is diagnosed with a condition like HIV/AIDS which I am not exactly sure what it would encompass, but from work experience would include things such as explaining what would potentially come next in terms of treatment and answering any other questions she might have such as the potential health ramifications of this diagnosis. I would make sure everything was clear so she could understand whether she would have to undertake a treatment plan like Josh's or something else.

 

[Sir]

Hi, I didn't really know how to approach this question but I answered it as best as I could Please offer advice and feedback, thanks!!

Name some of the current public health concerns in Australia. Discuss one in depth and suggest ways to address it.

There are numerous public health concerns in Australia today, including the prevalence of chronic cardiovascular diseases, limited healthcare access to specific groups of people and how alcohol is ingrained in Australian culture today. However, the most prominent healthcare crisis today is the COVID-19 virus. The virus has had a vast global impact with millions sick or dead, and Australia is no exception. Because of the highly infectious nature of the virus, the government is focused on containing the virus in each state, and many allied health professionals are being overworked in hospitals with limited protective equipment and resources. Doctors and nurses across the nation are exposed and vulnerable to the virus as a result, leading to health professionals falling ill to the same pathogen that plagues their patients.

There are three major issues that Australia faces regarding the COVID-19 virus right now: the vulnerability of doctors and nurses to the virus in hospitals, the overworking of medical professionals and the lack of an effective cure. In order to combat the first issue, I would suggest seeking aid from other more stable nations by requesting personal protective equipment and other resources that patients may need. Additional measures should also be taken to sterilize hospitals and wards in order to protect nurses, doctors and the patients. Furthermore, as Australian doctors and nurses are exhausted from the virus, I’d request international medical assistance to replenish the allied health workforce; medical students could also be called into action to assist in hospitals in a similar fashion to what students from other countries are doing. Finally, an effective cure in the form of a vaccine is currently being developed by the University of Queensland, as well as the University of Oxford overseas. In this respect, the government has already taken a large step in the right direction by signing a deal with UQ to receive the vaccine if it passes safety trials. However, I would suggest that the government offer more funding and assistance to UQ in hopes of accelerating vaccine development.

Disclaimer: Non Standard Applicant

I think this is a pretty good response and is well structured hitting the main points of the pandemics impact. I guess maybe with the solution, looking for international medical assistance might be viable depending on where, but I think Australia is actually doing better than many countries in the pandemic, so maybe we should be the ones giving the aid, not completely sure. I guess for the vaccine this is definitely good, and maybe you could talk a bit about international collaboration as I heard somewhere there was like hundreds of candidate vaccines even things that had never been tried before like mRNA vaccines, as well as its distribution. Also, I'm not sure if this would be good for a medical school interview but maybe could show some well roundedness if there was some discussion about economic related stuff. But overall, a well structured response that gives good context and hits all the main points.

 

[kotoloper]

This thread is looking great so far with all the feedback! Here's my attempt at this ethical/scenario based question. As usual, all feedback is appreciated.

Josh is a 29 year old patient who is a regular patient of yours. Josh was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS 3 years ago, and today he has come in for his regular GP checks. Upon questioning you find out that Josh has been sexually active with someone approximately 6 months ago. He has also confessed that he has not told his partner that he is HIV positive and has also confessed to not using contraception too. You insist that Josh should take better precaution during intercourse by using protection but completely ignores your advice saying that protection ruins the “experience” for him.

1. What should you , as the GP do next?
This situation is definitely an extremely sensitive especially considering the ignorance of the physicians advice. As with many situations like these, I believe my first instinct would be to ensure the health and safety of all individuals involved. Firstly this would initially involve gauging some of the details of this situation including how often he has been sexually active and with how many different partners during this time, as well as explaining to him the ramifications his actions could have on these individuals. Additionally I would check with legal/hospital guidelines surrounding situations like this. Then this would mean potentially first checking up on Josh and ensuring that his condition is improving even given this new discovery followed by contacting the partner recommending she would get tested. Although confidentiality is hugely essential, I believe the health and safety should be prioritized given the potentially fatal consequences of HIV/AIDS and would therefore as difficult as would be, recommend they see a physician.

2. Confidentiality is an important aspect of maintaining the therapeutic relationship between patient and doctor. What are the possible ramifications associated with the breaking of confidentiality.
There are many potentially detrimental impacts of breaking confidentiality. Firstly this could bring a breakdown of the doctor patient relationship as implied in the question, where the often sensitive information that is kept confidential, if exposed, could mean patients and the wider community are less willing to share their health problems with physicians. This especially applies with conditions such as mental health or STI's which have often quite a taboo around them. Secondly, breaking confidentiality could bring great emotional and mental stress towards patients for example through unconscious biases in the workplace, or merely just personal hardship in getting some of their private conditions exposed to others. This is simply the result of privacy being an extension of feeling safe.

3. List some situations, where you think confidentiality should be broken (if any).
Although confidentiality is a hugely important pillar to maintaining smooth relationships, there are some instances where the prioritization of other factors may take precedence. One such situation is where the health and safety of patients or other individuals are jeopardized such as in the example above. Here I believe the priorities of the medical system should lie in ensuring health standards for all of society and if these would be endangered eg unprotected sex by a HIV/AIDS patient, I believe breaking confidentiality is justified. Additionally, I believe confidentiality can be broken ONLY with the patients consent under various circumstances such as for the sake of science, or to family members and other relatives where it would normally be kept secret as the patient may genuinely want to share some aspects of their treatment and improvement.

4. You find out that Josh’s partner who he had the relationship with is HIV positive as well. She breaks down in front of you. What should you do next?
I would initially offer her consolation eg offer her tissues and comfort her, and if necessary give her some time to recover/book a later appointment if she is not in the correct mindset to discuss potential treatment plans. I would tell her I am sorry and inform her this is not her fault. Following this, I would follow the ordinary procedures surrounding the course of action when an individual is diagnosed with a condition like HIV/AIDS which I am not exactly sure what it would encompass, but from work experience would include things such as explaining what would potentially come next in terms of treatment and answering any other questions she might have such as the potential health ramifications of this diagnosis. I would make sure everything was clear so she could understand whether she would have to undertake a treatment plan like Josh's or something else.

Disclaimer: year 12 student
With part 1, I think it would be beneficial to address the issue of the patient's ignorance following up merely telling him the ramifications of his actions then checking on his health and his partner's health. It is important that he understands how his actions are wrong, and how his stance on how protection 'ruins the experience' for him is one that needs to be rectified; I believe that you need to make it clear so that he does not continue this behaviour in the future, which obviously would have negative consequences. I think that doctors are able to breach confidentiality if the health of a third party is at risk - I might be wrong though. Part 2 and 3 were done well in my opinion . In part 4, it is possible that Josh's partner would blame you for the fact that Josh continued to have intercourse despite having HIV; she may hold you partially responsible - in this case, I think you should apologise for your role in endangering her health due to your lack of knowledge (even though the fault lies with Josh), and reassure her that treatment is available and possible, while also gently informing her of the implications that come with HIV and the importance of not spreading it to other partners she may have.

 

[Scorpion]

This thread is looking great so far with all the feedback! Here's my attempt at this ethical/scenario based question. As usual, all feedback is appreciated.

Josh is a 29 year old patient who is a regular patient of yours. Josh was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS 3 years ago, and today he has come in for his regular GP checks. Upon questioning you find out that Josh has been sexually active with someone approximately 6 months ago. He has also confessed that he has not told his partner that he is HIV positive and has also confessed to not using contraception too. You insist that Josh should take better precaution during intercourse by using protection but completely ignores your advice saying that protection ruins the “experience” for him.

1. What should you , as the GP do next?
This situation is definitely an extremely sensitive especially considering the ignorance of the physicians advice. As with many situations like these, I believe my first instinct would be to ensure the health and safety of all individuals involved. Firstly this would initially involve gauging some of the details of this situation including how often he has been sexually active and with how many different partners during this time, as well as explaining to him the ramifications his actions could have on these individuals. Additionally I would check with legal/hospital guidelines surrounding situations like this. Then this would mean potentially first checking up on Josh and ensuring that his condition is improving even given this new discovery followed by contacting the partner recommending she would get tested. Although confidentiality is hugely essential, I believe the health and safety should be prioritized given the potentially fatal consequences of HIV/AIDS and would therefore as difficult as would be, recommend they see a physician.

2. Confidentiality is an important aspect of maintaining the therapeutic relationship between patient and doctor. What are the possible ramifications associated with the breaking of confidentiality.
There are many potentially detrimental impacts of breaking confidentiality. Firstly this could bring a breakdown of the doctor patient relationship as implied in the question, where the often sensitive information that is kept confidential, if exposed, could mean patients and the wider community are less willing to share their health problems with physicians. This especially applies with conditions such as mental health or STI's which have often quite a taboo around them. Secondly, breaking confidentiality could bring great emotional and mental stress towards patients for example through unconscious biases in the workplace, or merely just personal hardship in getting some of their private conditions exposed to others. This is simply the result of privacy being an extension of feeling safe.

3. List some situations, where you think confidentiality should be broken (if any).
Although confidentiality is a hugely important pillar to maintaining smooth relationships, there are some instances where the prioritization of other factors may take precedence. One such situation is where the health and safety of patients or other individuals are jeopardized such as in the example above. Here I believe the priorities of the medical system should lie in ensuring health standards for all of society and if these would be endangered eg unprotected sex by a HIV/AIDS patient, I believe breaking confidentiality is justified. Additionally, I believe confidentiality can be broken ONLY with the patients consent under various circumstances such as for the sake of science, or to family members and other relatives where it would normally be kept secret as the patient may genuinely want to share some aspects of their treatment and improvement.

4. You find out that Josh’s partner who he had the relationship with is HIV positive as well. She breaks down in front of you. What should you do next?
I would initially offer her consolation eg offer her tissues and comfort her, and if necessary give her some time to recover/book a later appointment if she is not in the correct mindset to discuss potential treatment plans. I would tell her I am sorry and inform her this is not her fault. Following this, I would follow the ordinary procedures surrounding the course of action when an individual is diagnosed with a condition like HIV/AIDS which I am not exactly sure what it would encompass, but from work experience would include things such as explaining what would potentially come next in terms of treatment and answering any other questions she might have such as the potential health ramifications of this diagnosis. I would make sure everything was clear so she could understand whether she would have to undertake a treatment plan like Josh's or something else.

Disclaimer: yr 12

Just a couple more suggestions to add on from those given by kotoloper :

1/2/3. You could mention somewhere that in order to preserve confidentiality a little more, you wouldn't reveal the details of your patient when you contact his former partner. This may also protect Josh's safety- the partner, upon being diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, may become angry and take dangerous action against him.

4. Upon Josh's partner's diagnosis, you could explain that the treatment of HIV has improved to be a condition manageable with medication. Public misunderstanding of HIV is very common, particularly as many saw it as a death sentence just a few decades ago, and knowing the facts may ease her worries a little. I wouldn't recommend rescheduling the appointment for a later date as intervening with medication earlier could prevent the HIV progressing into AIDS, and she would need to provide a list of sexual partners so further spread of the disease can be managed. I don't think you would need to know all the facts about HIV/AIDS for an interview, but showing a basic understanding of the disease and its interaction with society (which you touched on in part 2 by mentioning the stigma surrounding it) may be beneficial.

Edit: spelling & disclaimer