Medical ethics and recent news and breakthroughs (medicine applicants)
Scroll to see replies
So to summarize:
1.
So to summarize:
1. Doctors play a vital role in maintaining the stability of the health-care system, there would be dire consequences on the quality of care provided by the NHS if Doctors were to start striking.
2. Doctors however are professionals like any other and have a right to strike, a right to appropriate salaries; a healthy and well looked after doctor can work more diligently to ensure patients are equally as healthy.
3. On the other hand, being a doctor requires certain sacrifices to be made: one of the ethical principles that lies at the core of medical moral is that a doctor puts their patient first.
4. When lives are at risk, isn't it a sacrifice worth making? That is not to say that the good natured doctor should be taken advantage of, looking after our doctors = better healthcare for ourselves and our children.
I'm going to change things up a bit, this is an ethical scenario not a question how would you respond: Jack's father has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, he's finding it difficult to cope with the pressures of medical school and wants to drop out, lately he's been having panic attacks and thinks he might be developing anxiety.How would you advise him?
1.
Original post by Sycopation
Original post by boods8897
Original post by Mehhhh
x
So to summarize:
1. Doctors play a vital role in maintaining the stability of the health-care system, there would be dire consequences on the quality of care provided by the NHS if Doctors were to start striking.
2. Doctors however are professionals like any other and have a right to strike, a right to appropriate salaries; a healthy and well looked after doctor can work more diligently to ensure patients are equally as healthy.
3. On the other hand, being a doctor requires certain sacrifices to be made: one of the ethical principles that lies at the core of medical moral is that a doctor puts their patient first.
4. When lives are at risk, isn't it a sacrifice worth making? That is not to say that the good natured doctor should be taken advantage of, looking after our doctors = better healthcare for ourselves and our children.
I'm going to change things up a bit, this is an ethical scenario not a question how would you respond: Jack's father has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, he's finding it difficult to cope with the pressures of medical school and wants to drop out, lately he's been having panic attacks and thinks he might be developing anxiety.How would you advise him?
(edited 9 years ago)
I would advise Jack against making a rash decision. He must have put a great deal of hard work into getting into med school and it would be a shame to throw it away. Firstly I would say he needs to see a doctor regarding his anxiety and panic attacks, and secondly I would recommend that he goes home for a week and spends some time with his family and talks over potentially dropping out with them. If nothing has changed in his situation and he hasn't changed his mind a month or so down the line then dropping out is probably the right call.
This thread is a rly good idea!!
I would suggest jack seeks advice from a gp or health care professional regarding anxiety and panic attacks. I would work on trying to lessen the causes for example get jack to speak to his dad and make him feel less negative and distressed about the diagnosis. I would suggest he takes a break rather than making a sudden decision
I would suggest jack seeks advice from a gp or health care professional regarding anxiety and panic attacks. I would work on trying to lessen the causes for example get jack to speak to his dad and make him feel less negative and distressed about the diagnosis. I would suggest he takes a break rather than making a sudden decision
Similar to above point - ultimately it is his decision. I would tell him to seek help from a doctor about his panic attacks and probably set him up with some guidance helpers (staff at uni that may help him). I would tell him that it is his choice at the end of the day and that he should at least give it time to think about other alternatives. I would tell him that as a doctor there will be many struggles and stress... I would give him a month or so to try alternative things to help e.g. using the uni's staff to help him handle the pressure or have other relatives stay with his father. Also it may be worth seeing how far away his father is as there is a huge difference if he lives 6 hours away to half an hour by train.
Original post by sheriff246
Jack's father has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, he's finding it difficult to cope with the pressures of medical school and wants to drop out, lately he's been having panic attacks and thinks he might be developing anxiety.How would you advise him?
This isn't ethics but hey ho
Google "ISC Medical School Interview book" - pages 230 and 232 give good ideas - excellent book which deals with critical thinking
N.B. Doctors going on strike is on page 88 and 339
(edited 9 years ago)
Summary;
1) Avoid Rash decisions
2) Take a break - see family
3) Search for alternative things that may help situation
4) Make his own decision
Ok this question is related to Ebola since it's a current topic.
At the minute there are no treatments for Ebola however there are untested treatments (ZMapp, made by a company in California). The question is who should receive these experimental drugs?
(The first two people given this drug, were American volunteers), is this fair or should the infected Liberians have been the first to receive treatment??
If the Liberian people would have been the first to receive this treatment - "It would have been the front-page screaming headline: "Africans used as guinea pigs for American drug company's medicine"", Dr Salim Abdool Karim
1) Avoid Rash decisions
2) Take a break - see family
3) Search for alternative things that may help situation
4) Make his own decision
Ok this question is related to Ebola since it's a current topic.
At the minute there are no treatments for Ebola however there are untested treatments (ZMapp, made by a company in California). The question is who should receive these experimental drugs?
(The first two people given this drug, were American volunteers), is this fair or should the infected Liberians have been the first to receive treatment??
If the Liberian people would have been the first to receive this treatment - "It would have been the front-page screaming headline: "Africans used as guinea pigs for American drug company's medicine"", Dr Salim Abdool Karim
this thread seems like a good idea to help us all out with our interviews 
heres a question (quite typical so you've probably heard it before):
do you think those with self inflicted diseases through smoking/drugs/alcohol/diet should be treated equally to those who live healthily but have same/similar conditions? ie lung cancer
do you agree with allowing private healthcare to coexist with the NHS?
heres a question (quite typical so you've probably heard it before):
do you think those with self inflicted diseases through smoking/drugs/alcohol/diet should be treated equally to those who live healthily but have same/similar conditions? ie lung cancer
do you agree with allowing private healthcare to coexist with the NHS?
Original post by blissfully
do you think those with self inflicted diseases through smoking/drugs/alcohol/diet should be treated equally to those who live healthily but have same/similar conditions? ie lung cancer
do you think those with self inflicted diseases through smoking/drugs/alcohol/diet should be treated equally to those who live healthily but have same/similar conditions? ie lung cancer
page 252 and 255
Original post by blissfully
do you agree with allowing private healthcare to coexist with the NHS?
do you agree with allowing private healthcare to coexist with the NHS?
page 239
Whilst this thread is essentially a game, sure - I think its useful to read about "how" you can answer these questions - This is explained in pages 76 to 92
Original post by Parent_help
page 252 and 255
page 239
page 239
oh
Original post by blissfully
oh
the book is ref'd earlier (google it)
TSR doesn't like what could be seen as spam /adverts
Original post by Pumuki63
Summary;
1) Avoid Rash decisions
2) Take a break - see family
3) Search for alternative things that may help situation
4) Make his own decision
Ok this question is related to Ebola since it's a current topic.
At the minute there are no treatments for Ebola however there are untested treatments (ZMapp, made by a company in California). The question is who should receive these experimental drugs?
(The first two people given this drug, were American volunteers), is this fair or should the infected Liberians have been the first to receive treatment??
If the Liberian people would have been the first to receive this treatment - "It would have been the front-page screaming headline: "Africans used as guinea pigs for American drug company's medicine"", Dr Salim Abdool Karim
1) Avoid Rash decisions
2) Take a break - see family
3) Search for alternative things that may help situation
4) Make his own decision
Ok this question is related to Ebola since it's a current topic.
At the minute there are no treatments for Ebola however there are untested treatments (ZMapp, made by a company in California). The question is who should receive these experimental drugs?
(The first two people given this drug, were American volunteers), is this fair or should the infected Liberians have been the first to receive treatment??
If the Liberian people would have been the first to receive this treatment - "It would have been the front-page screaming headline: "Africans used as guinea pigs for American drug company's medicine"", Dr Salim Abdool Karim
The use of experimental drugs like ZMapp and other such treatments should be strictly prohibited under normal circumstances due to the limited knowledge of their side effects over the short and long term. In cases like those we face today with the unprecedented outbreak of Ebola use should be permitted amongst healthcare workers and volunteers exclusively such that there is no debate as to who is more or less deserving. Such a distinction ensures that wealth and access play no role on the distribution of such resources.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Im only in year 9 but am planning on a career in medicine or radiology, I also like reading about medical breakthroughs it comforts me in a way.
Original post by MrStealYourGirl
The use of experimental drugs like ZMapp and other such treatments should be strictly prohibited under normal circumstances due to the limited knowledge of their side effects over the short and long term. In cases like those we face today with the unprecedented outbreak of Ebola use should be permitted amongst healthcare workers and volunteers exclusively such that there is no debate as to who is more or less deserving. Such a distinction ensures that wealth and access play no role on the distribution of such resources.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
=MrStealYourGirl;51036015
In cases like those we face today with the unprecedented outbreak of Ebola use should be permitted amongst healthcare workers and volunteers exclusively such that there is no debate as to who is more or less deserving.
In cases like those we face today with the unprecedented outbreak of Ebola use should be permitted amongst healthcare workers and volunteers exclusively such that there is no debate as to who is more or less deserving.
if a world wide epidemic can be avoided by killing 100 infected patients, should it be done?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by blissfully
this thread seems like a good idea to help us all out with our interviews
heres a question (quite typical so you've probably heard it before):
do you think those with self inflicted diseases through smoking/drugs/alcohol/diet should be treated equally to those who live healthily but have same/similar conditions? ie lung cancer
do you agree with allowing private healthcare to coexist with the NHS?
heres a question (quite typical so you've probably heard it before):
do you think those with self inflicted diseases through smoking/drugs/alcohol/diet should be treated equally to those who live healthily but have same/similar conditions? ie lung cancer
do you agree with allowing private healthcare to coexist with the NHS?
I believe we should treat patients with self inflicted illnesses as we have a duty of care to provide to all people no matter who they are. However if people are being readmitted for things such as alcohol consumption or drug abuse there should be some kind of intervention help given such as counselling, rehabilitation so it's more beneficial at stopping the problem leading to health care being required. I don't believe in private health care, however if private health care is to co-exist with the nhs, the nhs should make sure the standard is high enough so that people that cannot avoid to go private are left with a sensible option and time period to have an operation, etc
Original post by Parent_help
if a world wide epidemic can be avoided by killing 100 infected patients, should it be done?
Personally I believe not, firstly this depends on what grounds and evidence you've based this statement on. It is highly unlikely that killing 100 patients would be the only way to prevent the epidemic, methods such as isolation could be tried. Playing god and deciding who deserves to live can only lead to a slippery slope, loosening our ethical boundaries and causing a 'knock on effect' When potential epidemics arise, nobody knows if we'll find a vaccine or how long that may take however we keep searching because the lives of those infected hold immeasurable value. They have not chosen to have this condition, and they have the right to live. Life is such that it is impossible to predict the impact that such a decision could have, these people may later on be cured and could go on to affect the world in a positive way. One of those 100 may find a cure of Parkingson's or make a new breakthrough in scientific research. With so much uncertainty we can not make such an unethical decision, to take these people away from their relatives and loved ones, especially when we if in the same situation would not want to be treated in such a way.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by sheriff246
Personally I believe not, firstly this depends on what grounds and evidence you've based this statement on. It is highly unlikely that killing 100 patients would be the only way to prevent the epidemic, methods such as isolation could be tried. Playing god and deciding who deserves to live can only lead to a slippery slope, loosening our ethical boundaries and causing a 'knock on effect' When potential epidemics arise, nobody knows if we'll find a vaccine or how long that may take however we keep searching because the lives of those infected hold immeasurable value. They have not chosen to have this condition, and they have the right to live. Life is such that it is impossible to predict the impact that such a decision could have, these people may later on be cured and could go on to affect the world in a positive way. One of those 100 may find a cure of Parkingson's or make a new breakthrough in scientific research. With so much uncertainty we can not make such an unethical decision, to take these people away from their relatives and loved ones, especially when we if in the same situation would not want to be treated in such a way.
With Ebola, the mortality rate is so high that a patient inflicted with the disease can assume that he/she will not survive the next year. If given the option: take the new, experimental treatment or continue taking existing, unreliable treatment (which, evidently, is not doing much to resolve the problem), many patients will willingly decide to take the new, experimental treatment. The fact that the new treatment hasn't been trialled sufficiently (for side effects, long and short term) is irrelevant as these people are desperate for a cure and may voluntarily decide to act as "test subjects" for the hope of survival.
Killing 100 patients is one thing, killing 100 "consenting" patients is another.
EDIT: This is assuming that the world wide epidemic is referring to Ebola, or a similar disease
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Mehhhh
With Ebola, the mortality rate is so high that a patient inflicted with the disease can assume that he/she will not survive the next year. If given the option: take the new, experimental treatment or continue taking existing, unreliable treatment (which, evidently, is not doing much to resolve the problem), many patients will willingly decide to take the new, experimental treatment. The fact that the new treatment hasn't been trialled sufficiently (for side effects, long and short term) is irrelevant as these people are desperate for a cure and may voluntarily decide to act as "test subjects" for the hope of survival.
Killing 100 patients is one thing, killing 100 "consenting" patients is another.
EDIT: This is assuming that the world wide epidemic is referring to Ebola, or a similar disease
Killing 100 patients is one thing, killing 100 "consenting" patients is another.
EDIT: This is assuming that the world wide epidemic is referring to Ebola, or a similar disease
Agreed. Part of a clinical trial is to test the experimental drug on patients who consent to the positive and negative consequences of the medication on trial. This includes side effects. This is obviously an extreme version of that situation, which, when done "properly", probably doesn't include those many risks. Moreover, their alternative is a disease with a 70% death rate at this point and an overworked and overwhelmed health system, facing the greatest outbreak of this disease.
Also, new topic: what do you think of the Ebola screening put into effect at Heathrow this week?
Original post by kate1902
Agreed. Part of a clinical trial is to test the experimental drug on patients who consent to the positive and negative consequences of the medication on trial. This includes side effects. This is obviously an extreme version of that situation, which, when done "properly", probably doesn't include those many risks. Moreover, their alternative is a disease with a 70% death rate at this point and an overworked and overwhelmed health system, facing the greatest outbreak of this disease.
Also, new topic: what do you think of the Ebola screening put into effect at Heathrow this week?
Also, new topic: what do you think of the Ebola screening put into effect at Heathrow this week?
Its likely to have little effect, as Ebola can not be detected during its incubation period, there is a very small period about 1-2 days where the symptoms of Ebola are evident and yet not so bad that they could not be mistaken for the common cold. This is when screening can be effective however with all the awareness of the symptoms of the disease and the way in which it spreads, it is unlikely that someone experiencing these symptoms would travel internationally. Never the less, the chance that screening may put less people at risk and that even a few lives may be saved is surely worth taken. Though one could also argue that resources would be better spent on a better public health sytem within poorer countries to reduce spreading.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What are some recent medical/ science breakthroughs?
- 21st century medicine
- Medicine and Dentiatry Society Topics to talk about?
- psychology: personal statement
- Wider Research & Activities for Medicine Application
- Article for medical ethics interview
- 3rd Year Dissertation Ideas (ODP)
- St Doms Or Michaela
- Doubts about medicine
- BMAT Section 3 Essay
- Medic mentor virtual work experience
- BMAT
- University of Nicosia Medical School 2023 entry
- Medicine Supercurriculars
- I wanna be a dermatologists
- Medicine Interview Discussion 2024 Entry
- resources for SJT UCAT
- 9998887753 GCSE, A*A*A* lots of work experience.worth applying to cambridge med ?
- Wondering if Pharmacology degree will involve testing on live animals?
- Competitiveness of medicine next cycle
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
