Is this actually like a real MMI?

Ammino recreates core MMI mechanics such as timed prompts, spoken discussion, follow-up questions, and station-level feedback. Exact formats, timing, station types, and scoring vary by institution, so applicants should verify their program’s current interview process. The role-play stations use a character that reacts to you, not a fixed script.

Do I talk out loud, or type?

You speak, out loud, the whole way through, and that's the point. It's the only way to rehearse the thing that actually happens in the room.

What if I have never done an MMI before?

Start with a single scenario station from your free allowance. Your interviewer explains the format before you begin, and your first report shows you exactly where you stand.

Is my practice private?

Your sessions, transcripts, and recordings are yours alone. Never shared, never used to train anything, never shown to a school. Ask us to delete your data anytime and we will.

Does this work for dental or PA interviews?

Many medical, dental, PA, and other professional programs use MMI-style interviews, although their station formats, competencies, timing, and scoring may differ. The mechanics you practice here carry across, and more program-specific content is on the way.

MMI Ethical Scenarios: Examples and How to Answer

Ethical stations are where MMIs separate careful thinkers from confident guessers. They rarely have a single right answer. What earns marks is how you reason, which means naming the tension, weighing both sides, and reaching a balanced conclusion out loud.

What ethical stations actually test

An ethical station gives you a dilemma, often with no comfortable option, and asks what you would do and why. The examiner is not checking whether you reached their preferred answer. They are checking whether you can see the competing values, hold more than one perspective at once, and argue your way to a conclusion without ignoring the other side. Certainty delivered fast usually scores worse than thoughtful, balanced reasoning.

The four pillars of medical ethics

Most medical dilemmas can be read through four principles. Naming them as you think keeps your answer structured and shows you are reasoning, not reacting:

Autonomy: a person's right to make their own informed decisions, even ones you disagree with.
Beneficence: acting in the person's best interest.
Non-maleficence: first, do no harm, and weigh the risks of acting.
Justice: fairness, and the equitable use of limited resources.

The interesting dilemmas are the ones where these pillars collide. A patient's autonomy pulls against their wellbeing, or one person's need pulls against fair use of a scarce resource. Your job is to surface the clash, not pretend it away.

Common ethical scenarios

Confidentiality vs harm: a friend or younger patient tells you something in confidence that could put them or others at risk.
A colleague who is struggling: you notice a peer whose drinking, stress, or behaviour may be affecting their work.
Resource allocation: one organ, one bed, or one appointment and more than one person who needs it.
Refusing recommended care: a competent adult declines treatment you believe would help them.
Honesty about a mistake: an error has happened and you must decide how transparent to be, and with whom.

A worked example

Scenario: A 15-year-old confides that they have started drinking heavily but begs you not to tell their parents.

A strong answer names the tension immediately: this pits the young person's autonomy and trust against non-maleficence, which is the duty to prevent serious harm. You would explore why they feel this way and how much risk there is, explain that you take their confidence seriously and would only involve others if their safety required it, and try to bring them with you rather than acting behind their back. You acknowledge that breaking a confidence has a real cost, and you weigh it against the potential harm of staying silent. There is no perfect answer, and the marks are in the balanced reasoning.

A structure for any ethical station

Name the tension: "This is really a conflict between X and Y."
Steelman both sides: give the strongest case for each before choosing.
Apply the pillars: map the dilemma onto autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
Commit, with humility: reach a clear conclusion, and say what would change your mind.

The structure is easy to understand and hard to perform cold. The fix is reps: talk through a live ethical station and get scored on how well you held both sides. To go deeper on stakeholders, escalation thresholds, and proportionate first steps, practise ethical MMI scenarios.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a right answer to MMI ethical questions?

Usually not. Ethical stations test your reasoning, not a memorised verdict. Examiners want to see that you recognised the competing values, considered more than one perspective, and reached a defensible conclusion. Two applicants can land in different places and both score well.

What are the four pillars of medical ethics?

Autonomy respects a person's right to make their own informed choices, beneficence means acting in their best interest, non-maleficence means avoiding harm, and justice means fairness and equitable use of resources. Naming these while you reason shows a structured approach.

How do I stay balanced under time pressure?

Use a fixed structure so you are not inventing one live. State the core tension, give the strongest case on each side, apply the four pillars, then commit to a reasoned conclusion. Practising that structure out loud makes it automatic.

Do PA and dental MMIs use ethical stations too?

Yes. Ethical reasoning is valued across medicine, dentistry, PA, and other health programs, so ethical dilemma stations appear in all of them. The frameworks on this page transfer directly.