syd.hassan Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 A plane crashed on a deserted island, there were 3 survivors, a mechanic, pilot and a pregnant passenger. There is barely enough water to keep two people alive and just enough time for the plane to be fixed and flying again. Which two people would you give water to ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truffle Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 your question is funny. if you could give water to these people, you are either stranded with them, or you are at a position that allows you to save them. and what do you mean by just enough time for the plane to be fixed? if so, why not fix the plane ASAP? i would use my survival skills and find/make water! you can make a fire, boil some sea water (there has got to be tins and things from the plane) and catch the evaporation on another thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd.hassan Posted February 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 The problem is the Questions was very specific, "Which two would you give the water?". I am not sure if they want me to make the hard decision or they wanted me to be empathetic or witty. Also, I am sure they dont want to you assume the time required to fix the plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truffle Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 what i mean is, if you are at a position that allows you to distribute water, you are either stranded with them on the island (4 stranded in total), or you are coming at the island from another place with water (you can save them by bringing them to the place where you got the water). the question itself is stupid. most people would agree that when a doctor's life is at stake, she can be excused if she saves herself before she thinks about the patient. suppose you are one of the four stranded, you could give the water to yourself without being blamed. but then you'd have to go without a pilot/mechanic, or go without both. then ultimately everybody dies. if you sacrifice yourself and give the water to the woman, everybody ultimately dies because you are going without either a pilot or a mechanic. if you sacrifice yourself and give the water to the pilot and mechanic, you and the woman will probably die. this question is dumb. there is no answer. if i were you, i'd act witty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 I second that this is a terrible question. Shame on the interviewers for asking such a contrived, nonsense question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd.hassan Posted February 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 I dont think the question is dumb, I guess I didnt give the total story and thats why you are getting confused. This question is actually part of my friends Pharmacy supplemental Application. This is exactly what they have asked and I am quoting it. "A plane has emergency landed on a deserted island with three survivors, the pilot, a mechanic and a pregnant passenger. There is only available water to barely keep only 2 of the passengers alive, but there may be enough time to get the plane fixed and flying. Which of the two passengers should get the water and why?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truffle Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 still dumb. it doesn't tell you how much water there is. nor does it tell you if you have enough fuel left to get to safety, whether people will be searching for you (very likely they will), whether you have a way to signal for help, how long will the water sustain two people, etc. and why can't you make water? i don't see why you have to be pigeon-holed into relying on the water which you already have and splitting it between two people. if you are sure the plane can be quickly fixed or you can be rescued quickly, why not share between 3 or 4 people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanserie Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 I agree that the wording is really confusing, but you're supposed to use that to your advantage. You see it as an opportunity to show that you're not confined by conventional thought. At face value it's asking who you would kill, right? But you're not the average applicant! YOU will try to come up with ways to save everyone. Will it rain on the island? Are there succulent leaves you could chew for moisture? Can you collect dewdrops? And as truffle must be thinking, there are so many variables that can be exploited so that everybody has a chance to live. Time to show off that creativity you've been bragging about in your application... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 still dumb. it doesn't tell you how much water there is. nor does it tell you if you have enough fuel left to get to safety, whether people will be searching for you (very likely they will), whether you have a way to signal for help, how long will the water sustain two people, etc. and why can't you make water? i don't see why you have to be pigeon-holed into relying on the water which you already have and splitting it between two people. if you are sure the plane can be quickly fixed or you can be rescued quickly, why not share between 3 or 4 people? Totally correct, question is phrased in a silly manner. Still the intent of the question is pretty clear. Assuming they are not trying to get us to creatively decide how to make water or use some other type of survivor style skills, and that question was less....contrived, who would you give the water too? I guess they want to know if you would sacrifice the pregnant women. You need the pilot to fly the plane, you need the mechanic to fix it. I presume no one would survive if the plane doesn't leave the island (guess that is implied). I hate questions like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Yeah, this was posted in another section of the forums. A completely lame question, IMO. It's either kill everyone or save 2 people, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 There is already a discussion about this exact question somewhere here...I think in the interview forum even (but it is more detailed...) I think the point is that you have to let the pregnant woman die (even though she's pregnant and that sucks and that's why the decision is hard) b/c you need the mechanic to fix the plan and the pilot to fly it. otherwise everyone will die. did you actually get asked this question at an interview? It's a stupid question I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Yeah, this was posted in another section of the forums. A completely lame question, IMO. It's either kill everyone or save 2 people, lol. Well there you go! Seemed like the only answer. It is a lot more realistic and interesting if the question is choosing to give a limited medical resource to save one of two people. Something like a heart transplant - how exactly would you decide? Particularly since all medical test results are ambiguous. Or choosing between funding a needle exchange (which could save perhaps more people who are self inflicting injuries upon themselves) or a cancer centre (where the disease is more random, and the cost per patient is higher). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Well there you go! Seemed like the only answer. It is a lot more realistic and interesting if the question is choosing to give a limited medical resource to save one of two people. Something like a heart transplant - how exactly would you decide? Particularly since all medical test results are ambiguous. Or choosing between funding a needle exchange (which could save perhaps more people who are self inflicting injuries upon themselves) or a cancer centre (where the disease is more random, and the cost per patient is higher). Or even if this question were something like: you have a pregnant woman, an elderly man, a mentally retarded teenager, and a child, and only enough water for 2 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truffle Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 i think in every version of the question, you can be justified in giving equal amount of water to every one. unequal sharing can lead to violence and serious harm of all parties. such an answer would reveal that you are a fair person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanserie Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Or even if this question were something like: you have a pregnant woman, an elderly man, a mentally retarded teenager, and a child, and only enough water for 2 people. What if you had a pregnant woman, a nurse, a mechanic, an elderly man, a pilot, a mentally retarded teenager, a child, a Nobel Prize laureate, Stephen Hawking, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, your own mother, your interviewer, the Dean of the medical school, and a chimp, and only enough water for 2 of the above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 What if you had a pregnant woman, a nurse, a mechanic, an elderly man, a pilot, a mentally retarded teenager, a child, a Nobel Prize laureate, Stephen Hawking, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, your own mother, your interviewer, the Dean of the medical school, and a chimp, and only enough water for 2 of the above? Well, that's painfully obvious, give all the water to the chimp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ploughboy Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 What if you had a pregnant woman, a nurse, a mechanic, an elderly man, a pilot, a mentally retarded teenager, a child, a Nobel Prize laureate, Stephen Hawking, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, your own mother, your interviewer, the Dean of the medical school, and a chimp, and only enough water for 2 of the above? And the bartender says "Why the long face?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewfieMike Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 I love questions like these. Obviously this is a hypothetical situation. Anyone can be creative and think up an answer as to how they can survive on the island (we're into Lost Season 5 don't forget). But I think that's the easy way out. If I were asked this in a legit med school interview, I'd clarify if this is a hypothetical situation and there was no possible way to make any decision other than who to give the water to. If the choice has to be made, it's math. either the pilot/mechanic doesn't get it - all 3 die. preggo lady doesn't get it - only she dies (we can probably go on for a long time about the unborn fetus counting as another person, but I think that's another thread all to its own) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 i think in every version of the question, you can be justified in giving equal amount of water to every one. unequal sharing can lead to violence and serious harm of all parties. such an answer would reveal that you are a fair person. Entirely fair! and when all four of them die due to lack of water that will be a great comfort to you Ok, that was overly sarcastic so I apologise - I am a bit cranky today - but I was just reading about similar cases like this in trauma rooms just last week. The scenario is a large terrorist attack (or whatever). The ER is overloaded, and everyone needs treatment from a chemical agent. You cannot treat them fast enough to save everyone, what do you do? Normally you treat the sickest first and put off treating the less well until later. However the paper suggested that in situations like this there comes a point where you actually do the reverse - you stop treating the worst cases, essentially you let them die, because you save more people by focusing on the healthier cases. “We need to work in such a way that we can save the lives of the greatest number of patients.” Very utilitarian way of thinking! Throws patients' right to equal treatment out the window. Scares the hell out of me! Their point it is not ethical in extreme cases to treat everyone fairly and doctors (at least ER doctors) must be trained to know when the capacity is overloaded to the point of doing the switch. A lot of the ethical scenarios seem to be hinting about situations like this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Entirely fair! and when all four of them die due to lack of water that will be a great comfort to you Ok, that was overly sarcastic so I apologise - I am a bit cranky today - but I was just reading about similar cases like this in trauma rooms just last week. The scenario is a large terrorist attack (or whatever). The ER is overloaded, and everyone needs treatment from a chemical agent. You cannot treat them fast enough to save everyone, what do you do? Normally you treat the sickest first and put off treating the less well until later. However the paper suggested that in situations like this there comes a point where you actually do the reverse - you stop treating the worst cases, essentially you let them die, because you save more people by focusing on the healthier cases. “We need to work in such a way that we can save the lives of the greatest number of patients.” Very utilitarian way of thinking! Throws patients' right to equal treatment out the window. Scares the hell out of me! Their point it is not ethical in extreme cases to treat everyone fairly and doctors (at least ER doctors) must be trained to know when the capacity is overloaded to the point of doing the switch. A lot of the ethical scenarios seem to be hinting about situations like this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage Sometimes, it has to be done. The article even mentions reverse triage! Oh Wikipedia, what can't you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Normally you treat the sickest first and put off treating the less well until later. However the paper suggested that in situations like this there comes a point where you actually do the reverse - you stop treating the worst cases, essentially you let them die, because you save more people by focusing on the healthier cases. Yeah, essentially that's what they teach in EMS triage. If they are not able to breathe on their own or have no pulse in a triage situation, you leave them - even though in a regular situation, you'd be resuscitating this person unless they were obviously dead (D.R.I.E.D.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 What's DRIED? Yeah, essentially that's what they teach in EMS triage. If they are not able to breathe on their own or have no pulse in a triage situation, you leave them - even though in a regular situation, you'd be resuscitating this person unless they were obviously dead (D.R.I.E.D.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngdad Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Well, that's painfully obvious, give all the water to the chimp. ROFL. This scenario doesn't seem far fetched at all. I am glad I have we have all thought this out, so when it happens to me I will be quick to remember - All water to the chimp! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngdad Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Honestly though, I think you have to share the water. Giving all the water to the pilot or any one of the three in the OP for that matter would sacrifice human life to save human life. Nobody wants to be that "means to an end." Unless someone voluntarily gives up their water it is unreasonable to let a life end for the sake of another. If nobody volunteers than the three of them enjoy their last moments together on this unfortunate island. All three lives are lost, but their humanity is preserved. Why do we not let organ donors that have a bleak diagnosis die so we can harvest their organs? Surely one life lost is not worth as much as the five or six that could be saved. Wrong, until they are dead they deserve the same treatment as everyone else. That includes every reasonable measure that can be used to preserve their life. It is their life to give, not ours (physicians') to take. We must have respect for the rights of an autonomous patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 What's DRIED? Decapitated Rigor Mortis Incinerated Eviscerated (heart and/or lungs) Decomposing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.