Hi everyone, I have an interview coming up and was hoping I could get some of your opinions on the matter. Ethics is a hard topic to discuss and there will always be numerous points to make in the argument. Generally, most people would stay in the grey area, be as neutral as possible whilst trying to address the issue. But is this wise? Should you agree or disagree and stick with it whilst recognizing the opposing argument of course?
Similarly in an organ transplant case it would be okay to argue for a younger person and a much older person even if you come across as ageist there are some points. But I would struggle to start arguing a case, lets say, a young person about 20 and a single mother who's about 25 I guess. I would not be able to pick a side which I would assume the invigilator would force you to pick one.
Thanks for taking the time in reading this post and replying!
Turn on thread page Beta
MMI Ethics Question watch
- Thread Starter
- 22-02-2016 19:58
- 02-03-2016 18:53
Ethics is a tricky one for lots of people, so don't worry too much if you struggle with it a little. The golden rule of any ethics question is always ARE YOU ACTING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PATIENT. This is followed by are you acting in the best interests of your colleagues, and finally the very very very last consideration is always yourself. If you stick to the golden rule, you can't go too far wrong!
There are no right or wrong answers to ethics questions, but you have to show that you have a basic grasp of the things that would have to be considered in an ethical scenario. For example if you are presented with a question about who should receive a transplant, you must show that you have considered the age of the patients ie. children should be prioritised as they would most likely get the most use out of an organ, the number of dependants they have (are they a parent of young children, do they care for a relative ie. if they do not receive the transplant how many other people will suffer), the likely outcome for the patient ie. are they likely to die even if they do receive the transplant, the patients committal to providing themselves with the best possible outcome, ie. with liver transplants, alcoholics often have to provide sufficient evidence that they will not drink once they receive a transplant, and also don't be afraid to admit that there is not enough information to make a decision on! In real life, you would not be the only person making the decision-a whole team of specialists would be involved, all of whom would be well informed about each of the potential recipients of the organs.
In answer to your question, I would say the grey area is where most people would be. It would show a lack of thorough consideration of the consequences of your decision if you immediately said something was right or wrong ie. if you immediately said the 5 year should get the organ because they are the youngest, without considering any other factors. Ethics questions rarely ask for a direct answer, and many simply ask "what are the issues raised" or something along those lines. You would never have enough information given to you to make an accurate decision, so it is wise to stay away from a fervent answer. However, if you are pushed to make some form of decision, make sure it is fully thought through and reasoned OUT LOUD.
GOOD LUCK IN YOUR INTERVIEW! xLast edited by lsnell14; 02-03-2016 at 19:34. Reason: Forgot to say good luck!
- Thread Starter
- 06-03-2016 19:38
Thanks for the reply! That makes sense and I should keep all that stuff in my mind, I'll stick to the grey area unless I have to choose. Cheers!