Practice Interview Question Thread

[velvetthundr]

Hey again! I thought I’d give this question a go. any feedback is appreciated as usual (nit-picky ones as well ofc)

There is an outbreak of an incredibly contagious life-threatening disease. The disease is spreading across the country at a rapid rate and the survival rate is less than 50%. You are a senior health care administrator, and when the vaccine is developed, you have priority to receive the drug. Do you take the vaccine yourself or give it to another person? Why or why not?

I believe that in a difficult scenario such as this, there are multiple considerations to be made in order to make an informed decision. I think that, as a senior health care administrator, when the vaccine is developed there definitely is a sense of priority when it comes to the allocation of this vaccine with numerous advantages and disadvantages of receiving the drug myself first or giving it to another person.

By taking the vaccine myself, I become essentially shielded from the disease allowing me to take on more responsibilities in the care of those who have contracted the disease. However, by taking the vaccine this does not necessarily mean that I won’t be able to transmit the disease to others, in fact it may reduce my own cautionary measures when interacting with patients as I may not be experiencing any symptoms. This becomes especially important in the hospital setting, where if I make multiple ward rounds per day while carrying the disease, I am placing the attending staff and patients at risk, which can potentially cause a spike in the number of cases within the hospital, going against the principle of ‘do no harm’ or non-maleficence, hence adding further stress to the health sector. I feel like there’s also a certain level of guilt that comes along with this decision in the event that a vulnerable patient was waiting to receive their vaccine, for instance, and so while my physical health might be taken care of, my mental and emotional health may be impacted negatively as a result.

Conversely, providing this vaccine to another member of the community ties into the medical principle of beneficence as I am doing the best for my patients by prioritising them for the treatment. Additionally, I feel like there are situations where certain patients may be more deserving of receiving the vaccine before myself such as those who are immunocompromised due to chemotherapy for example, and that if these types of patients were to contract the virus, their chances of survival would be much lower than that of the general population. Furthermore, I feel like my decision may impact the public’s perception of the health profession, as society holds an expectation of receiving care when in dire situations, when a family member has contracted the disease for instance, in which they believe the priorities of health professionals should be their patients under all circumstances. Hence if I decide to choose myself as the vaccine recipient, this could cause some backlash from the public and they may potentially lose faith in the medical profession.

To conclude, by weighing up the positive and negative impacts in this scenario, I would give the vaccine to another, more deserving person who is more vulnerable to the disease, as I will be doing the best for others while maintaining the public’s perception in the medical care they receive.

I like how you clearly compared and contrasted the pros/cons of each course of action before deciding on your answer in the end! Something you could've mentioned is how the vaccine may or may not be 100% reliable, because there are cases when a vaccine doesn't work for certain people. I think this becomes even more likely when the vaccine is developed under immense time pressure, because companies/government MIGHT overlook something or miss something when developing the vaccine in their rush to get the vaccine out to the public. You could also bring up how the idea of "what you contribute to society vs. what the patient you're giving the vaccine to contributes to society" could be a way to decide who to give the vaccine to. However, its not entirely necessary to talk about that; all in all, I think you covered all the main points in a really clear way. great job!

 

[N182]

Thought I would have another go, this question was a tricky one and I'm not certain whether I took the appropriate actions, any advice from anyone is greatly appreciated thanks.

1.You are a security guard at a research laboratory. One night, you apprehend a number of teenagers who have broken in to the building. They explain to you that the laboratory has been testing new pharmaceutical products on animals and that they wish to free them. If you let them go, they will be able to help the animals and you may lose your job. However, if you do not, the animals will continue to suffer. What do you do?
This is definitely a difficult situation as it involves the complex topic of animal testing. First of all there is no doubt that the teenagers have commited a crime in the form of trespassing and have thus broken the law. Therefore even in the case that the intention of the teenagers were morally right I will tell them that they have commited a crime and that they must face the legal reprecussions and that I cannot let them go as this is my job as a security guard. I would try to further understand why they have broken into the building. They could have read in an article that the company is abusing animals or they may have heard rumours, whatever the case is I would explain to them that there are other appropriate ways they can express their opinions and stop animal suffering, whether this is to stop buying products related to animal testing, express their views on social media, or educate others on animal testing.

If I haven't done so already, I would personally research whether this company handles experimentation ethically and legally. I must check whether the animals are treated in a humane way such that animals only suffer when absolutely neccesary in the research. Also animals must be kept in humane conditions outside of experimentation, for example animals must be give food water and approriate care. Having considered all of these factors and also whether what the company is doing is legal animal experimentation I will make my decision on how to handle the situation afterwards.

If I find that malpractice is occuring at this labratory I will report these matters to the appropriate legal authorities despite the possibility of losing my job as it is my duty to follow the law. However with regards to animal experimentation as a whole I believe it is not my place as a security guard to judge whether this is right or wrong and if I find no malpractice occurs and the company is proceeding within the law I wouldn't take any furthur action, as this would unneccesarily put my job at risk. This may also cause the laboratory workers to be seen in a bad light and potentially lose their jobs.

2.If you had knowledge that the products were not going to harm the animals, would this change your response?
This would not change how I would handle the situation teenagers. Whether the company is inflicting harm on animals is irrevelant to the fact that the teenagers have commited a crime and it is my duty as a security guard to apprehend any potential intruders. However despite no harm being inflicted on the animals, I would still double check whether animals are tested in the proper environment and given adequate care and respond accordingly.

3.When you were hired, the lead researcher at the laboratory explained that their experiments were important to ensure the safety of future human trials. Do you believe that harm against animals is ethically justifiable if it means protecting a human?
The topic of animal testing is a complex ethical dilemma and there are many points for and against to be considered before deciding whether it is ethically justifiable. The main point for animal testing is the notion that it is a neccesary evil, required for the benefit of mankind. Animal testing can lead to a greater quality of life, less suffering, and longer lives for humans. Animal testing has been neccesary to develop many vaccines and medical procedures. One of the most famous examples is the vaccine for polio which was primarily developed through experimentation on monkeys. Also as long as animals are given the appropriate care and are placed in a humane environment the relative suffering of animals would be significantly less than the benefits gained from this suffering.

However one could argue that in reality animals aren't given a great quality of life in most laboratories, being contained in cages or other enclosed containers. Also a substantial amount of animal testing leads to no breakthroughs or advancedments therefore the suffering of these animals could be seen as without purpose. One could also argue that animal lives are equal to that of humans, as they are sentient beings and many animals could even understand the concept of morality. Also as opposed to humans, animals cannot give consent on whether they want to volunteer their body for experimentation and this could be seen as ethically wrong.

Overall I believe it is ethically justifiable to harm animals to protect humans despite the arguments against I believe animal testing is neccessary for human advancement. However certain conditions must be met when testings these include; harm is at a bare minimum, the animals are given proper care and treatment afterwards and the animals are given adequate food, water and shelter.

 

[whoartthou]

Hey again! I thought I’d give this question a go. any feedback is appreciated as usual (nit-picky ones as well ofc)

There is an outbreak of an incredibly contagious life-threatening disease. The disease is spreading across the country at a rapid rate and the survival rate is less than 50%. You are a senior health care administrator, and when the vaccine is developed, you have priority to receive the drug. Do you take the vaccine yourself or give it to another person? Why or why not?

I believe that in a difficult scenario such as this, there are multiple considerations to be made in order to make an informed decision. I think that, as a senior health care administrator, when the vaccine is developed there definitely is a sense of priority when it comes to the allocation of this vaccine with numerous advantages and disadvantages of receiving the drug myself first or giving it to another person.

By taking the vaccine myself, I become essentially shielded from the disease allowing me to take on more responsibilities in the care of those who have contracted the disease. However, by taking the vaccine this does not necessarily mean that I won’t be able to transmit the disease to others, in fact it may reduce my own cautionary measures when interacting with patients as I may not be experiencing any symptoms. This becomes especially important in the hospital setting, where if I make multiple ward rounds per day while carrying the disease, I am placing the attending staff and patients at risk, which can potentially cause a spike in the number of cases within the hospital, going against the principle of ‘do no harm’ or non-maleficence, hence adding further stress to the health sector. I feel like there’s also a certain level of guilt that comes along with this decision in the event that a vulnerable patient was waiting to receive their vaccine, for instance, and so while my physical health might be taken care of, my mental and emotional health may be impacted negatively as a result.

Conversely, providing this vaccine to another member of the community ties into the medical principle of beneficence as I am doing the best for my patients by prioritising them for the treatment. Additionally, I feel like there are situations where certain patients may be more deserving of receiving the vaccine before myself such as those who are immunocompromised due to chemotherapy for example, and that if these types of patients were to contract the virus, their chances of survival would be much lower than that of the general population. Furthermore, I feel like my decision may impact the public’s perception of the health profession, as society holds an expectation of receiving care when in dire situations, when a family member has contracted the disease for instance, in which they believe the priorities of health professionals should be their patients under all circumstances. Hence if I decide to choose myself as the vaccine recipient, this could cause some backlash from the public and they may potentially lose faith in the medical profession.

To conclude, by weighing up the positive and negative impacts in this scenario, I would give the vaccine to another, more deserving person who is more vulnerable to the disease, as I will be doing the best for others while maintaining the public’s perception in the medical care they receive.

Noble but I would probably disagree.
- As a health care administrator you won't be doing ward rounds.
- If you are unwell it doesn't allow you to take care of other sick people which may potentially mean more people will die as a result of there being a lack of staff. As you can see in the current outbreak resources are strained including healthcare staff especially if they fall sick.
- Having less than 50% survival rate would result in mental health issues for myself if I was to contract the disease.
- From a scientific perspective if you were not vaccinated you are probably more likely to spread the disease without knowing than if you were vaccinated. The value of vaccination is to suppress the ability for the disease to replicate and therefore reach a degree of infectivity that can then be transmitted to other people.
- I don't think you evaluated the impact your actions may have on your family, friends etc. if you choose not to take the vaccine.
- Also as someone else discussed the value of your input in the output vs the sick person for example your contribution to society would be much greater than someone who has terminal cancer. Although it's not a pleasant topic to discuss we have to make these decisions in the face of these circumstances.

Personally I think your approach was a bit too idealistic. I still think it's an above average answer.

 

[JL538]

Had a go at this question. Any feedback would be appreiciated

You are a medical student and a specialist asks you to perform an abdominal exam on a patient who is already under anaesthetic. You are aware she did not consent to this but the specialist will be examining your abilities. What would you do?

First of all, I would clarify what the abdominal exam involves exactly; how intrusive is it?, and is there any risk involved for an inexperienced medical student like me performing it as opposed to the specialist? Nevertheless, I believe I would still not agree to performing the procedure. I would start by asking to speak with the specialist privately if we are not already in a private setting. I would then express my concerns and discomfort about performing the procedure. This involves highlighting how the patient did not consent for a medical student to perform the procedure, and is currently under anaesthesia so consent cannot be gathered from them. I would acknowledge that it is important for medical students to gain experience, as we cannot improve without practice. However, I would suggest that I still believe the patient’s autonomy surrounding the medical care, specifically who they receive it from, is more important in this case. Therefore, I believe it is better to not take the risk of potentially disobeying the patient’s wishes, which would have negative consequences of decreasing trust in the medical profession. Moreover, if the procedure is dangerous, the level of patient care may be affected, and the chances they would disagree to a medical student performing the procedure would likely be increased. However, as I am a medical student, I would of course ask the specialist for advice and what he thinks of the issue

 

[Poppy101]

You are the only ER doctor on duty and are responsible for all decision making during this shift. This night you have two patients rushed into the ER who both desperately require a kidney transplant. One of these patients is 80 years old, a university professor, suffering from acute kidney failure related to his age. The other patient is a 20-year-old university student who is been brought in to the ER several times previously, and here he is again of another episode of kidney problems related to excessive drinking of alcohol at school parties. There’s only one kidney available that matches both patients. Who do you give the kidney to?

can someone pls answer this

 

[hazell]

You are the only ER doctor on duty and are responsible for all decision making during this shift. This night you have two patients rushed into the ER who both desperately require a kidney transplant. One of these patients is 80 years old, a university professor, suffering from acute kidney failure related to his age. The other patient is a 20-year-old university student who is been brought in to the ER several times previously, and here he is again of another episode of kidney problems related to excessive drinking of alcohol at school parties. There’s only one kidney available that matches both patients. Who do you give the kidney to?

can someone pls answer this

Hey! I'm also preparing for interviews so take my answer with a grain of salt. I'm unsure on how these cases are assessed in reality but I wanted to give this a shot anyways!

In this scenario I am faced with an ethical dilemma of giving a kidney transplant to an 80-year old university professor and a 20-year old university student.

Firstly, I will gather more information before deciding on an appropriate course of action. I must remain non-judgemental and must not jump to conclusions about age, gender, success, or dependence on alcohol. I will find out more information about the prognosis of both patients pre and post transplant. It will be helpful to find out more about which patient is more likely to recover as a result of the transplant as well as gain the most (quality and quantity) from the kidney transplant. I will gather more information about the medical presentation of both patients.

I understand that I am responsible for all decisions made during this shift- however, I should seek out other's thoughts. Healthcare has a team-based approach and it would be inappropriate for me to make the decision alone. I will consult other physicians, nurses, both patients and the ethics committee at the hospital. The decision for who will receive the transplant must be made non-judgementally and should be based on medical presentation/background and prognosis- success and dependence on alcohol should not be considered in this decision.

There will be one patient who receives the transplant- if after all the steps I have discussed above, the university student is deemed appropriate then I will take further action to discuss with the patient their alcohol taking behaviours and take appropriate actions to assist the patient with their excessive drinking.

For future improvements, I will discuss this case with the healthcare team and ethics committee to ensure that the hospital has guidelines for organ transplant cases in which organs are given on a non-judgemental basis.

To summarise, I will firstly gather more information before making a decision and ensure guidelines are put into place for future cases similar to this one.

 

[Sokka]

You are the only ER doctor on duty and are responsible for all decision making during this shift. This night you have two patients rushed into the ER who both desperately require a kidney transplant. One of these patients is 80 years old, a university professor, suffering from acute kidney failure related to his age. The other patient is a 20-year-old university student who is been brought in to the ER several times previously, and here he is again of another episode of kidney problems related to excessive drinking of alcohol at school parties. There’s only one kidney available that matches both patients. Who do you give the kidney to?

can someone pls answer this

This is what I said from the top of my head into my laptop (pretty much word for word). I couldn't really flesh out much more, but this seems to be interesting. Any feedback is appreciated.

So assuming there are no other kidneys available to be donated, so firstly I need to run a background check over both patients to see if this kidney can be taken up by both of them. This includes checking blood types or anything that might affect the success of the transplant. When making my decision I should not be judgmental about their lifestyles, and I should only be looking at this from an objective perspective such as the prospect of recovery, the quality of life afterward, and how long they may live. The best case scenario for the University professor is that he may live another 15 years happily with no complications. Conversely, the the best case scenario for the 20 year old will be that they live for the next 75 years complication free and healthily. So basically, my evaluation of who is less likely to suffer from complications during surgery and who is more likely to experience the most benefits after the transplant is who I’d give it to.

Also I also need to look at the severity of both of these patients conditions. For example, does one patient need the transplant urgently, or can they wait a few more days? Could I put one of them on dialysis? If this is possible, while treating the more severe patient, I must promise the other that I will give them the best care until another kidney transplant is available. (This is not a guarantee that they will survive, but I should look after them to the best of the hospitals ability to ensures that greatest chance of survival). Additionally, the less severe patient could also be transported to another hospital where there might be another kidney available.

 

[Crow]

Had a go at this question. Any feedback would be appreiciated

You are a medical student and a specialist asks you to perform an abdominal exam on a patient who is already under anaesthetic. You are aware she did not consent to this but the specialist will be examining your abilities. What would you do?

​

First of all, I would clarify what the abdominal exam involves exactly; how intrusive is it?, and is there any risk involved for an inexperienced medical student like me performing it as opposed to the specialist? Nevertheless, I believe I would still not agree to performing the procedure. I would start by asking to speak with the specialist privately if we are not already in a private setting. I would then express my concerns and discomfort about performing the procedure. This involves highlighting how the patient did not consent for a medical student to perform the procedure, and is currently under anaesthesia so consent cannot be gathered from them. I would acknowledge that it is important for medical students to gain experience, as we cannot improve without practice. However, I would suggest that I still believe the patient’s autonomy surrounding the medical care, specifically who they receive it from, is more important in this case. Therefore, I believe it is better to not take the risk of potentially disobeying the patient’s wishes, which would have negative consequences of decreasing trust in the medical profession. Moreover, if the procedure is dangerous, the level of patient care may be affected, and the chances they would disagree to a medical student performing the procedure would likely be increased. However, as I am a medical student, I would of course ask the specialist for advice and what he thinks of the issue

Nice work.

This is an example of a question where there is a correct answer, and it is absolutely a hard no. Never perform any examination or procedure on a patient without their consent. I feel in a real life scenario, zero justification would be required to the consultant for refusing other than that the patient hasn’t consented. I think your answer is more than sufficient in this regard, though presumably in an interview setting they would ask for (or at least, more marks would be awarded if you included) a justification surrounding the ethical issues with performing exams without consent. In this scenario you could also refer to pressures associated with the power differential between you as a student and the specialist and how this could create a conflict etc, but unless there was a follow up question to that effect then I feel it wouldn’t be a necessity.

 

[Sokka]

Hey! I'm also preparing for interviews so take my answer with a grain of salt. I'm unsure on how these cases are assessed in reality but I wanted to give this a shot anyways!

In this scenario I am faced with an ethical dilemma of giving a kidney transplant to an 80-year old university professor and a 20-year old university student.

Firstly, I will gather more information before deciding on an appropriate course of action. I must remain non-judgemental and must not jump to conclusions about age, gender, success, or dependence on alcohol. I will find out more information about the prognosis of both patients pre and post transplant. It will be helpful to find out more about which patient is more likely to recover as a result of the transplant as well as gain the most (quality and quantity) from the kidney transplant. I will gather more information about the medical presentation of both patients.

I understand that I am responsible for all decisions made during this shift- however, I should seek out other's thoughts. Healthcare has a team-based approach and it would be inappropriate for me to make the decision alone. I will consult other physicians, nurses, both patients and the ethics committee at the hospital. The decision for who will receive the transplant must be made non-judgementally and should be based on medical presentation/background and prognosis- success and dependence on alcohol should not be considered in this decision.

There will be one patient who receives the transplant- if after all the steps I have discussed above, the university student is deemed appropriate then I will take further action to discuss with the patient their alcohol taking behaviours and take appropriate actions to assist the patient with their excessive drinking.

For future improvements, I will discuss this case with the healthcare team and ethics committee to ensure that the hospital has guidelines for organ transplant cases in which organs are given on a non-judgemental basis.

To summarise, I will firstly gather more information before making a decision and ensure guidelines are put into place for future cases similar to this one.

Disclaimer- Yr 12
"Firstly, I will gather more information before deciding on an appropriate course of action. I must remain non-judgemental and must not jump to conclusions about age, gender, success, or dependence on alcohol. I will find out more information about the prognosis of both patients pre and post transplant. It will be helpful to find out more about which patient is more likely to recover as a result of the transplant as well as gain the most (quality and quantity) from the kidney transplant. I will gather more information about the medical presentation of both patients."
- Really liked this.

"I understand that I am responsible for all decisions made during this shift- however, I should seek out other's thoughts. Healthcare has a team-based approach and it would be inappropriate for me to make the decision alone. I will consult other physicians, nurses, both patients and the ethics committee at the hospital. The decision for who will receive the transplant must be made non-judgementally and should be based on medical presentation/background and prognosis- success and dependence on alcohol should not be considered in this decision."
- Again, very good. However, would you want to talk to the patient when making this stressful decision? It could sway you and cause you to make the decision based on emotion rather than logic (you may feel sympathetic towards one of them, or you may not like the other for example)
- I don't know if you need to talk to the ethics committee for this? This is a tough decision no doubt but I'm not too sure if they would specialise in decisions like this (I also don't see this being an issue focusing on ethics, more so ability to act non-judgmentally as you mentioned before).

There will be one patient who receives the transplant- if after all the steps I have discussed above, the university student is deemed appropriate then I will take further action to discuss with the patient their alcohol taking behaviours and take appropriate actions to assist the patient with their excessive drinking.
- Yeah i liked how you looked to future scenarios
-You could potentially talk about what you would do for the other patient if they don't receive the transplant (refer to my post for deets)

Overall, really good imo

 

[botselenium]

Hi, I'm also preparing for interviews atm. Thought I'd have a go. Here's what I came up with:

• I'd like to preface my answer by saying what a difficult dilemma this is. Additionally, as you are the only doctor on the shift, all decision making power lies with you and hence you could solely be responsible if something went wrong.
• What makes this situation tricky is that the student will likely get more use out of the organ than the professor, but the professor needs it through no fault of his own, whereas the student needs it as a result of their own actions.
• The doctors who treated the student in the past would likely have told him to be more careful in the future, as he is risking his life with the way he drinks. This makes the decision trickier as we aren't sure that the student will make healthier choices after getting the transplant. For all we know, he make take the kidney for granted and then unfortunately die within a few years because of some similar alcohol related problem (maybe he drunk-drove, or he damages the new kidney but continuing to drink). Are we sure that the student will exit this cycle of alcohol induced accidents?
• The student is 20 and they are experiencing "episodic kidney problems" while the man is 80 years old and his kidney is failing. I'm not too sure about the details of these conditions, but it sounds like the student's kidney problems are less extreme.
• The gentleman's kidney failures are "due to his age". The way I see this, his kidneys are failing because his kidneys are simply "older" not because there is something inherently wrong with them.
• There's also the fact that the student is more likely to see another organ become available in their lifetime while this might not be the case for the 80 year old man. I feel that this may be the professor's last chance to receive a viable organ.
• On the flip side, we need to consider whether they are likely to accept or reject the organ.
• Older people are more likely to have complications during surgery. However, we are told that the 80 year old man is still working and teaching at the university to this day. To me, this somewhat indicates that his general health is OK. I reckon there's a good chance he'll survive the operation if he's strong and healthy enough to still be working.
• Ideally I would discuss this with a fellow doctor that I trust, but seeing that I'm the only one on the shift - and we are in the ED - I think we need to decide on our own here.
• In conclusion, I would give the kidney to the older gentleman as I believe he will get more use out of it and treat it better than the student will. Although there's a higher chance of complications occurring during the transplant, I believe it is outweighed by the man's otherwise good health.

Thank you

 

[hazell]

Hi, I'm also preparing for interviews atm. Thought I'd have a go. Here's what I came up with:

• I'd like to preface my answer by saying what a difficult dilemma this is. Additionally, as you are the only doctor on the shift, all decision making power lies with you and hence you could solely be responsible if something went wrong.
• What makes this situation tricky is that the student will likely get more use out of the organ than the professor, but the professor needs it through no fault of his own, whereas the student needs it as a result of their own actions.
• The doctors who treated the student in the past would likely have told him to be more careful in the future, as he is risking his life with the way he drinks. This makes the decision trickier as we aren't sure that the student will make healthier choices after getting the transplant. For all we know, he make take the kidney for granted and then unfortunately die within a few years because of some similar alcohol related problem (maybe he drunk-drove, or he damages the new kidney but continuing to drink). Are we sure that the student will exit this cycle of alcohol induced accidents?
• The student is 20 and they are experiencing "episodic kidney problems" while the man is 80 years old and his kidney is failing. I'm not too sure about the details of these conditions, but it sounds like the student's kidney problems are less extreme.
• The gentleman's kidney failures are "due to his age". The way I see this, his kidneys are failing because his kidneys are simply "older" not because there is something inherently wrong with them.
• There's also the fact that the student is more likely to see another organ become available in their lifetime while this might not be the case for the 80 year old man. I feel that this may be the professor's last chance to receive a viable organ.
• On the flip side, we need to consider whether they are likely to accept or reject the organ.
• Older people are more likely to have complications during surgery. However, we are told that the 80 year old man is still working and teaching at the university to this day. To me, this somewhat indicates that his general health is OK. I reckon there's a good chance he'll survive the operation if he's strong and healthy enough to still be working.
• Ideally I would discuss this with a fellow doctor that I trust, but seeing that I'm the only one on the shift - and we are in the ED - I think we need to decide on our own here.
• In conclusion, I would give the kidney to the older gentleman as I believe he will get more use out of it and treat it better than the student will. Although there's a higher chance of complications occurring during the transplant, I believe it is outweighed by the man's otherwise good health.

Thank you

Hey, I really like how you've considered many many points and hypothetical sub scenarios. However, I feel as though your final judgement is somewhat biased (or even judgemental), for example, how do you know the older man will get more use out of the transplant? What exactly do you mean by more use? I don't think there is enough information to justify that the older man will gain more use out of the transplant since factors such as medical prognosis and quality/quantity of life post-transplant aren't known. I don't think we can make this judgement based on the success of the older man and the alcohol dependence of the younger man.
Maybe he will die due to complications due to old age in surgery, or maybe his body will reject the new organ. What if the young person ceases drinking and looks after their health after the transplant? You justify your decision by saying the risks are outweighed by the older man's otherwise good health- but the young person may also have otherwise good health. It may be beneficial to go into more detail as some points seem a little vague and can be misinterpreted.
However, I really like how you considered many factors!

 

[JL538]

For the kidney question, I understand this is not included in medical protocols (I think its called triage for this?), but should you discuss the fact that the older man is a university professor who would have a very important role in society, and thus his death could have more severe consequences? Or is that kind of off-topic?

 

[hazell]

For the kidney question, I understand this is not included in medical protocols (I think its called triage for this?), but should you discuss the fact that the older man is a university professor who would have a very important role in society, and thus his death could have more severe consequences? Or is that kind of off-topic?

I don't know about medical protocols but it just seems unethical to reason like that personally, why would his death have more severe consequences? Maybe the younger man is going to become someone who also has a very important role in society- we can't know for sure so it seems judgemental to give the organ to the older man only because of his societal status and success. But that's just my personal view, I would appreciate it if someone with more knowledge can give us more info about this!

 

[Sokka]

For the kidney question, I understand this is not included in medical protocols (I think its called triage for this?), but should you discuss the fact that the older man is a university professor who would have a very important role in society, and thus his death could have more severe consequences? Or is that kind of off-topic?

I mean, the reason does make sense tbh. It's just that it may be easily argued (as Hazell pointed out, who's to say the 20 y/o won't be successful/ impact society meaningfully).
I think the biggest thing with this question is to work with the information that we have, that way any conclusion made will be on a sound basis.
I'm only in year 12, happy to be proven wrong.

 

[JL538]

Yeah honestly seemed a bit weird when I thought about it, but I wonder how VIPs are treated under medical care. For example, the prime minster would surely receive much greater attention and care, even if it could be justified that allocating the resources to someone else who is healthier would be better for maximizing chances of survival if we disregard the "value" of the people involved

 

[botselenium]

Thank you for your swift reply and analysis of my answer hazell. I do agree with you wholeheartedly.

I too felt as though my answer was getting a bit judgemental near the end. The more I wrote about it the more involved I got with the situation and started to feel frustrated with the student. "This kid comes into the ER so often and every time we try to tell him he should be more careful etc. Yet he keeps drinking unhealthily. Does he deserve the kidney?"

I am conflicted as to whether success and alcohol dependency should be taken into account. I feel that they are major factors that one should consider but I also completely agree with everything you said. This makes me conflicted.

How are we to make a non judgemental decision? Apart from their ages and the fact that the student will live longer if he gets the organ, what factors can we use if we can't talk about success of operation or alcohol dependency?

On another note, I really liked how in your response you said you will try get as much info as possible and then talk to other people in the hospital. I think it was great that you thought about the future and tried to find a way to get some guidelines made for similar cases in the future.

 

[JL538]

Any feedback would be appreciated

A child has cancer and an experimental drug has been suggested. The drug may be the child's only option. There has been no research into the drugs long term effects. What do you do?

Firstly, the most important issue to consider in this scenario is the patient’s, and their family’s, autonomy and right to decide whether they want to pursue the treatment or not. Due to the patient being a child, and the complex nature of this situation, I would aim to gain consent and discuss the issue with their legal guardians first (probably parents). After our discussion, I would then aim to discuss the scenario with the child as clearly as I can, or allow the parents to discuss it with them if that is what they prefer. To begin, I would ensure we are in a private location, and I would aim to engage with the parents in small talk so that they feel comfortable and relaxed, as this is a very dire and distressing situation. I would start the discussion by outlining the situation the child is in, which is that the experimental drug is possibly his last chance at survival to overcome his cancer. I would then openly and honestly provide information about the drug, including its effectiveness, known short-term effects, and the fact that long-term consequences are currently unknown. After providing the appropriate information, I would answer any queries the parents may have. I would also articulate that the most important thing in this scenario is that they make a choice they are comfortable with, and ensure they do not feel pressured by me in anyway. In fact, I would encourage them to take some time to ponder, and not make any rash decisions, as well as potentially seek a second opinion from other medical professionals. Overall, I aim to provide as much information in an impartial manner as possible, and allow them to make an informed decision.

 

[N182]

Thought I would have another go, this question was a tricky one and I'm not certain whether I took the appropriate actions, any advice from anyone is greatly appreciated thanks.

1.You are a security guard at a research laboratory. One night, you apprehend a number of teenagers who have broken in to the building. They explain to you that the laboratory has been testing new pharmaceutical products on animals and that they wish to free them. If you let them go, they will be able to help the animals and you may lose your job. However, if you do not, the animals will continue to suffer. What do you do?
This is definitely a difficult situation as it involves the complex topic of animal testing. First of all there is no doubt that the teenagers have commited a crime in the form of trespassing and have thus broken the law. Therefore even in the case that the intention of the teenagers were morally right I will tell them that they have commited a crime and that they must face the legal reprecussions and that I cannot let them go as this is my job as a security guard. I would try to further understand why they have broken into the building. They could have read in an article that the company is abusing animals or they may have heard rumours, whatever the case is I would explain to them that there are other appropriate ways they can express their opinions and stop animal suffering, whether this is to stop buying products related to animal testing, express their views on social media, or educate others on animal testing.

If I haven't done so already, I would personally research whether this company handles experimentation ethically and legally. I must check whether the animals are treated in a humane way such that animals only suffer when absolutely neccesary in the research. Also animals must be kept in humane conditions outside of experimentation, for example animals must be give food water and approriate care. Having considered all of these factors and also whether what the company is doing is legal animal experimentation I will make my decision on how to handle the situation afterwards.

If I find that malpractice is occuring at this labratory I will report these matters to the appropriate legal authorities despite the possibility of losing my job as it is my duty to follow the law. However with regards to animal experimentation as a whole I believe it is not my place as a security guard to judge whether this is right or wrong and if I find no malpractice occurs and the company is proceeding within the law I wouldn't take any furthur action, as this would unneccesarily put my job at risk. This may also cause the laboratory workers to be seen in a bad light and potentially lose their jobs.

2.If you had knowledge that the products were not going to harm the animals, would this change your response?
This would not change how I would handle the situation teenagers. Whether the company is inflicting harm on animals is irrevelant to the fact that the teenagers have commited a crime and it is my duty as a security guard to apprehend any potential intruders. However despite no harm being inflicted on the animals, I would still double check whether animals are tested in the proper environment and given adequate care and respond accordingly.

3.When you were hired, the lead researcher at the laboratory explained that their experiments were important to ensure the safety of future human trials. Do you believe that harm against animals is ethically justifiable if it means protecting a human?
The topic of animal testing is a complex ethical dilemma and there are many points for and against to be considered before deciding whether it is ethically justifiable. The main point for animal testing is the notion that it is a neccesary evil, required for the benefit of mankind. Animal testing can lead to a greater quality of life, less suffering, and longer lives for humans. Animal testing has been neccesary to develop many vaccines and medical procedures. One of the most famous examples is the vaccine for polio which was primarily developed through experimentation on monkeys. Also as long as animals are given the appropriate care and are placed in a humane environment the relative suffering of animals would be significantly less than the benefits gained from this suffering.

However one could argue that in reality animals aren't given a great quality of life in most laboratories, being contained in cages or other enclosed containers. Also a substantial amount of animal testing leads to no breakthroughs or advancedments therefore the suffering of these animals could be seen as without purpose. One could also argue that animal lives are equal to that of humans, as they are sentient beings and many animals could even understand the concept of morality. Also as opposed to humans, animals cannot give consent on whether they want to volunteer their body for experimentation and this could be seen as ethically wrong.

Overall I believe it is ethically justifiable to harm animals to protect humans despite the arguments against I believe animal testing is neccessary for human advancement. However certain conditions must be met when testings these include; harm is at a bare minimum, the animals are given proper care and treatment afterwards and the animals are given adequate food, water and shelter.

Hi guys I wrote this a while back any feedback would be appreciated. Sorry for the repost.

 

[N182]

Any feedback would be appreciated

A child has cancer and an experimental drug has been suggested. The drug may be the child's only option. There has been no research into the drugs long term effects. What do you do?

Firstly, the most important issue to consider in this scenario is the patient’s, and their family’s, autonomy and right to decide whether they want to pursue the treatment or not. Due to the patient being a child, and the complex nature of this situation, I would aim to gain consent and discuss the issue with their legal guardians first (probably parents). After our discussion, I would then aim to discuss the scenario with the child as clearly as I can, or allow the parents to discuss it with them if that is what they prefer. To begin, I would ensure we are in a private location, and I would aim to engage with the parents in small talk so that they feel comfortable and relaxed, as this is a very dire and distressing situation. I would start the discussion by outlining the situation the child is in, which is that the experimental drug is possibly his last chance at survival to overcome his cancer. I would then openly and honestly provide information about the drug, including its effectiveness, known short-term effects, and the fact that long-term consequences are currently unknown. After providing the appropriate information, I would answer any queries the parents may have. I would also articulate that the most important thing in this scenario is that they make a choice they are comfortable with, and ensure they do not feel pressured by me in anyway. In fact, I would encourage them to take some time to ponder, and not make any rash decisions, as well as potentially seek a second opinion from other medical professionals. Overall, I aim to provide as much information in an impartial manner as possible, and allow them to make an informed decision.

Agree with everything you said, just a few more considerations:
-What stage of cancer does the child have?
-What condition is the child in? Can he function normally or does he need support as of now?
-What will be the quality of life of the child before and after taking the drug? If the child is in pain for the rest of his life you may consider whether it may be best to not take the drug (passive euthanasia)
-What is the financial situation of the family? Can they afford the drug?
-Is the drug a one time thing, or would the child need to reguarly take it?
-What have been the results of the drug so far? We know that it is experimental but there must be some statistics behind it which could aid in the decision making process.

 

[shoebox]

Hey, I really like how you've considered many many points and hypothetical sub scenarios. However, I feel as though your final judgement is somewhat biased (or even judgemental), for example, how do you know the older man will get more use out of the transplant? What exactly do you mean by more use? I don't think there is enough information to justify that the older man will gain more use out of the transplant since factors such as medical prognosis and quality/quantity of life post-transplant aren't known. I don't think we can make this judgement based on the success of the older man and the alcohol dependence of the younger man.
Maybe he will die due to complications due to old age in surgery, or maybe his body will reject the new organ. What if the young person ceases drinking and looks after their health after the transplant? You justify your decision by saying the risks are outweighed by the older man's otherwise good health- but the young person may also have otherwise good health. It may be beneficial to go into more detail as some points seem a little vague and can be misinterpreted.
However, I really like how you considered many factors!

I agree with what both of you have said, and I think you managed to comprehensively outline all the considerations required to make an informed decision. I gave this a go myself before looking at your answers and had many similar points. Just one thing I'd potentially add is the mechanical/biological factors of a kidney transplant. A kidney from a larger male donor may be better suited to the older man as compared to the younger man (with a slimmer build for example). Also, one patient may potentially be a 'better' match than the other, not enough info is given in the stem. So further investigation of this (with various assays as suggested above) could highlight the recipient who I would be more inclined to give the organ to.

Just a question here, after summarising all of this points, could I potentially say I would also look at the rest of the organ recipient waiting list and look for a better candidate if both are deemed not suitable? This kind of puts the scenario into a real-life perspective as obviously they won't be debating between just two people in hospitals.