Medical Ethics Interview Questions | MMI & Panel | Medical School Interview Questions

[@medicalschoolinterview]

I love these type of walk throughs of questions. They help immensely !!!

[@user-fx8ck3tv3o]

Perfect timing for my ucl interview tomorrow !

[@aisha.0606]

it’s a bit late to say good luck but i hope it went well!!!

[@O-qw9uc]

How was it? How was your experience?

[@macworld2932]

Hi aspiring medic I was just wondering if you were to get a role play station where you had to explain to someone in a non medical station bad news and aswell as maybe teaching someone to tie their shoelace, should you ask for them to do a summary of what has been discussed in both scenarios?

[@TheAspiringMedics]

Absolutely, getting their understanding so far is really useful and we just so happen to have a Tying a Shoelace video coming out very soon so stay tuned!

[@O-qw9uc]

When?

[@TheAspiringMedics]

Tomorrow!

[@Ade-y7l]

How would biases influence the use of diagnostic AI. Whist poor training data sets provide poor quantifiable outcomes. The current use of AI such as for use in ECG and radiology slides, to analyse the pixels of the output images. Would a patients ethic background influence the ECG readings or MRI results, in terms of the characteristic hallmark of a certain pathology?

[@TheAspiringMedics]

Biases in diagnostic AI, like ECG and radiology tools, often stem from training data that lacks diversity, leading to less accurate outcomes for underrepresented groups. Ethnic differences, such as variations in heart anatomy or disease presentations, could influence how AI interprets hallmark signs of certain pathologies. For example, ECG patterns like QT intervals or T-wave morphology vary across populations, potentially affecting diagnosis accuracy. Similarly, imaging AI might misinterpret pixel data if trained predominantly on one demographic. Addressing this requires diverse datasets that account for physiological and pathological variations across ethnic groups. Ensuring inclusivity in AI training helps improve outcomes for all patients.

[@dhyrin]

wow, very informative

[@bestversion1x]

hi there, for the scenario about the transfusion, is taking up with an ethics team or your MDT breaking patient confidentiality or not?

[@TheAspiringMedics]

In the scenario regarding a transfusion, discussing the case with an ethics team or a multidisciplinary team (MDT) does not necessarily break patient confidentiality, provided it is handled appropriately. Here are some key points to consider: Purpose of Consultation: The primary reason for discussing the case with an ethics team or MDT is to seek guidance on managing ethical dilemmas and complex medical decisions, which is a legitimate part of patient care. Anonymity and Relevance: While discussing the case, it is important to share only relevant information and, whenever possible, do so without disclosing identifying details of the patient. The focus should be on the ethical or medical dilemma rather than personal details of the patient. Professional Obligation: Healthcare professionals are obligated to maintain confidentiality, and this extends to members of ethics committees and MDTs. These team members are typically trained and aware of the importance of maintaining confidentiality. Institutional Policies: Most healthcare institutions have policies and procedures for handling ethical consultations and MDT discussions. These are designed to respect patient confidentiality while allowing for professional discussion and decision-making. Legal and Ethical Frameworks: Both legal and ethical frameworks in healthcare support the idea of consulting with colleagues or specialized teams for challenging cases, as long as patient confidentiality is maintained and the intent is to improve patient care.

[@aisha.0606]

you’re allowed to break patient confidentiality if there is serious risk to the patients life, or society i think

[@mochapine5259]

could a patient theoretically say that they wanted to continue treatment even if the doctor had said it wasn't in their best interest? From my understanding, autonomy doesn't mean that they can continue care if the doctor has decided it isn't beneficial for them.

[@TheAspiringMedics]

Precisely! In medical ethics, patient autonomy is highly valued, allowing patients to express their desire for continued treatment even when a doctor deems it not beneficial. However, doctors operate under the principle of beneficence, prioritizing patient well-being and refraining from futile or harmful treatments. In cases of disagreement, the key is empathetic communication, balancing medical judgment with patient values to find a mutually acceptable plan. It's very much a patient can choose from a list of options available to them by the doctor; otherwise patients risk having unneccesary procedures in which the risks outweigh the benefits, unproven efficacy and/or too expensive to offer to all patients to the NHS

[@aisha.0606]

great video just a quick question - i thought that the UK used an opt out system, not an opt in (voluntary system)?

[@TheAspiringMedics]

Yes, that's right - the United Kingdom implemented an "opt-out" system for organ donation. Under this system, all adults in England are considered willing to be an organ donor when they die unless they have recorded a decision not to donate or are in one of the excluded groups. This is different from an "opt-in" system where people must actively sign up to be a donor. The opt-out system was designed to increase the number of available organs for transplantation by assuming consent unless explicitly withdrawn. This change in the system aims to help save and improve more lives through organ donation