A 17-year-old with severe post-operative anaemia (haemoglobin 42g/L) is deteriorating. His parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses, have refused consent for blood transfusion. When you are alone with the patient, he whispers, "I'd take the blood if it were up to me." What do you do?

Tips to guide your answer

- This tests your understanding of: (1) the legal framework for treating a young person aged 16 - 17; (2) the tension between parental authority and an adolescent's emerging autonomy; (3) the clinical urgency of severe anaemia with haemodynamic compromise; (4) the ethical complexity of a young person whose private wishes differ from their parents' stated position; and (5) the practical steps needed to act in the patient's best interests.

- Interviewers want to see that you understand a capacitous young person can consent to treatment even if parents refuse, and that you know how to navigate this sensitively.

Sign in to unlock speak mode

Create account Sign in

How to approach this Shared interview question

This ethics question is common in NHS interviews because it reveals how you think under interview pressure, not just what facts you can recall. Use "A 17-year-old with severe post-operative anaemia (haemoglobin 42g/L) is deteriorating...." as the anchor for a concise answer with a clear opening, a clinical or professional structure, and a reflective close.

What the panel is testing

A strong ethics answer makes the competing duties visible. Name the principle or legal issue, then describe the practical steps you would take in the hospital: gather facts, assess capacity where relevant, seek advice, document, and protect the patient. For shared NHS interview questions, keep the answer portable across roles. Use one relevant example, explain your reasoning, and make the link to safe patient care explicit.

Identify the ethical tension before jumping to a decision: capacity, consent, confidentiality, best interests, or law.
Use local policy and senior advice, and be explicit about safeguarding or immediate patient-safety concerns.
Balance respect for autonomy with professional duties, documentation, and clear communication.

How to structure your answer

For a ethics prompt, aim for a short opening sentence, then two or three evidence-led points, then a final reflection. If you use STAR, keep the result and reflection as strong as the situation. If it is a clinical scenario, say what you would do now, what you would do next, and how you would keep the patient safe while help is coming.

Open by naming the main issue in the question.
Give a structured response rather than a memorised script.
End with escalation, documentation, learning, or follow-up.

Common mistakes to avoid

The weakest answers usually stay too vague, ignore the specific role, or miss the safety issue hidden in the question. Do not use this page to memorise a perfect paragraph. Use it to rehearse the shape of a safe answer, then adapt it to your own experience and the post you are applying for.

This tests your understanding of: (1) the legal framework for treating a young person aged 16 - 17; (2) the tension between parental authority and an adolescent's emerging autonomy; (3) the clinical urgency of severe anaemia with haemodynamic compromise; (4) the ethical complexity of a young person whose private wishes differ from their parents' stated position; and (5) the practical steps needed to act in the patient's best interests.
Interviewers want to see that you understand a capacitous young person can consent to treatment even if parents refuse, and that you know how to navigate this sensitively.