Also, your response to the second part of my post that you quoted doesn't make any sense. You suggested outlining both sides of the 'debate'; I suggested that viewing ethical problems as a 'debate' is wrong-minded in the first place.
You're awfully defensive, you know.
Ethics is a mixture of art and science, and there's never really a 'right' answer - in a lot of cases, it's just that one answer is slightly less bad than another. It's good to think about ethical dilemmas, and to be able to show that you've thought of at least some of the factors that would go into making a decision. But it's a mistake to sound too confident (or worse, arrogant) - experienced consultants often struggle with this stuff, because it's hard, and there often isn't an outright winner in terms of options. This is what I meant when I said presenting it as if there are two sides to an ethical debate and that the debate can be won is wrong-headed. That's all.
The chance you'll be asked about ethics in your interviews is too small to be justify a thread on it. Practice being yourself guys.
Where was it that interviewed you and didn't touch on ethics at all?
EDIT: Just realised that sentence is almost an echo of what nexttime has posted above.
Anyway, I'm not sure where all this hate towards the OP is coming from. I actually found discussing ethical scenarios to be very helpful when I was preparing for interviews. It gave me a chance to understand the role of the healthcare professional in various situations, and hear other people's opinions on topics I had never considered. It definitely persuaded me to look more into the area and educate myself. Granted it's not helpful to memorise a list of answers, but I found that with ethical scenarios, it was worthwhile just to stimulate a discussion and encourage a more open-mind, as well as learn the limits of healthcare and the boundaries of treatment for patients in the UK.
Also, just to add to the conversation, I found these case scenarios on the GMC website to be an interesting read: