Not finished...and I don't know if it actually conveys any intellectual vitality. Please help edit it. Thank you!
Prompt: Stanford students are widely known to posses a sense of intellectual vitality. Explain to us a time when you felt intellectually engaged.
"You have three minutes to make your decision, or you will be needlessly killing six innocent people!" These are the words that continuously bounced around my head while I attempted to answer one of the most indeterminate questions in the world of medicine: Is one life truly more valuable than another? In my hands, I had a list of seven names; each person was in dire need of a heart transplant. The destitute profiles of a world-renown cancer researcher, child, war veteran, single mother of six, teacher, Hollywood starlet, and college student stood before me to plead their cases. The diverse views presented by each patient were of valid and fervent bearing. In the world of medicine there is always, in a sense, a right and a wrong. Either you do something right and it works out, or you do something wrong and it can be fatal. The commonality in every situation is that you are making a decision that will effect the lives of a myriad of people - not just your own. This dilemma that was posed to me at the National Student Leadership Conference on Medicine and Health Care, was one of separation of my personal convictions from medical necessity. Even in the case of equally qualified candidates, how do you make the choice of to whom the heart should belong? In the safety and confines of this exercise, factors such as age, dependants, financial considerations, expected contribution to society, and prominence could play a major role in my decision. So why was the decision so difficult? Why not accept the 1-million dollar check from the starlet? Shouldn't the veteran be repaid for his duties? Why doesn't the little girl get to live a full life?
Prompt: Stanford students are widely known to posses a sense of intellectual vitality. Explain to us a time when you felt intellectually engaged.
"You have three minutes to make your decision, or you will be needlessly killing six innocent people!" These are the words that continuously bounced around my head while I attempted to answer one of the most indeterminate questions in the world of medicine: Is one life truly more valuable than another? In my hands, I had a list of seven names; each person was in dire need of a heart transplant. The destitute profiles of a world-renown cancer researcher, child, war veteran, single mother of six, teacher, Hollywood starlet, and college student stood before me to plead their cases. The diverse views presented by each patient were of valid and fervent bearing. In the world of medicine there is always, in a sense, a right and a wrong. Either you do something right and it works out, or you do something wrong and it can be fatal. The commonality in every situation is that you are making a decision that will effect the lives of a myriad of people - not just your own. This dilemma that was posed to me at the National Student Leadership Conference on Medicine and Health Care, was one of separation of my personal convictions from medical necessity. Even in the case of equally qualified candidates, how do you make the choice of to whom the heart should belong? In the safety and confines of this exercise, factors such as age, dependants, financial considerations, expected contribution to society, and prominence could play a major role in my decision. So why was the decision so difficult? Why not accept the 1-million dollar check from the starlet? Shouldn't the veteran be repaid for his duties? Why doesn't the little girl get to live a full life?
