Ethics stations make people nervous because they feel like they have a right answer that you're supposed to know. At the Auckland MMI they don't. The University says the moral and ethical station isn't a knowledge test. What's being assessed is whether you can spot the dilemma, hold more than one side of it, and reason your way to a fair position.
That's a skill you can practise, and it matters more than ever. For 2028 entry, the MMI is half of Auckland's MBChB ranking, with Casper as the other half. Here's a simple way to approach these stations, with a worked example.
How the station works
Auckland's MMI is recorded, not live. For each station you get 30 seconds to read the prompt and three minutes to answer on camera, and then it moves on. It's one of seven scored domains, which we go through in what the Auckland MMI scores you on.
Three minutes sounds like a long time until you're in it. Without some structure, most people either run out of things to say at 90 seconds or spend two and a half minutes on one side of the argument.
A six-step way through
- Name the dilemma. In one or two sentences, say what the tension is and who is affected. This shows straight away that you've seen the problem.
- Say what you'd want to know. Most prompts leave details out on purpose. Naming one or two missing facts, and saying how they'd change things, shows you don't jump to conclusions.
- Argue one side properly. Give the strongest version of the first view, with a reason.
- Argue the other side properly. Same again. Don't build a straw man you can knock down.
- Weigh them and take a position. Use principles to explain why one side wins for you, and say what you would do about it.
- Say what would change your mind. One sentence. It shows the position is reasoned and not fixed.
For step 5, the four principles used in health ethics give you language for the weighing: autonomy (a person's right to decide for themselves), beneficence (doing good), non-maleficence (avoiding harm) and justice (fairness, including who gets what). In a New Zealand answer, equity belongs in justice. It's about who is already worse off and how a decision would land on them, which is also one of the attributes Auckland scores.
A rough timing guide is 20 seconds for step 1, 20 seconds for step 2, 40 seconds each for steps 3 and 4, 40 seconds for step 5 and 10 seconds for step 6. You don't have to hit those exactly. The point is to avoid spending everything on one side.
A worked example
Here's a prompt we've written to practise with: "Some people argue that patients who keep smoking should be given lower priority for publicly funded surgery. What do you think?"
An answer using the six steps might go like this.
1. This is about whether people's health behaviour should affect their access to public healthcare. It affects the patients themselves, other people on the waiting list, and the health system that has to decide how to share out limited surgery.
2. I'd want to know what kind of surgery we're talking about. If smoking makes the operation itself much riskier, that's a clinical question, and it's different from priority being used as a punishment. I'd also want to know whether the patient has been offered real support to stop smoking.
3. The case for it is that surgical resources are limited. If smoking increases the risk of complications, or makes it less likely the operation will work, then prioritising patients who are more likely to benefit could do more good overall. It might also encourage some people to quit.
4. The case against is that smoking is an addiction, and it's strongly linked to stress, income and other things people don't fully choose. In New Zealand, smoking rates are higher in some groups because of those wider factors, so a rule like this would make existing health inequities worse. It also moves doctors toward judging whether patients deserve care, which could damage trust.
5. On balance I'd be against using smoking to push people down the list as a rule. Justice and equity weigh heavily for me here, because the people most affected are often already worse off. Where smoking really does change the clinical risk, that should be part of the surgical decision, alongside good support to quit before the operation, and that decision should be made with the patient.
6. If there was strong evidence that a specific operation simply doesn't work in people who keep smoking, I'd see that as a clinical reason and I'd think about it differently.
The answer never uses a statistic the speaker couldn't back up, and it treats the opposite view as reasonable while still finishing on a clear position.
Mistakes that cost marks
- Sitting on the fence. Seeing both sides is good. Refusing to choose one usually isn't. Pick a position and own it, even a cautious one.
- Arguing only one side. If you jump straight to your view, you haven't shown the reasoning they're scoring.
- Making up facts. If you're not sure of a number, don't use it. "I'd want to know" is a good phrase here.
- Forgetting the people. An answer made only of principles sounds cold. Mention the patient, the family or the community it affects.
- Running out of time before the conclusion. If you see 30 seconds left, jump to step 5.
How to practise
Write prompts on cards and do one a day, out loud, recorded on your phone with a 30 second prep and a three minute timer. Then watch it back and check two things: did you argue both sides fairly, and did you land on a position? Here are some practice prompts we've written to get you started:
- Should sugary drinks have an extra tax to fund health services?
- Is it ever acceptable for a doctor to withhold information from a patient?
- Should students be required to do volunteer work before applying to medicine?
- Should people be paid to take part in medical research?
For structuring answers more generally, see how to structure a 3 minute recorded MMI answer, and for more stations to practise with, try our MMI practice questions.
FAQ
Do I need to know ethics theory for the MMI?
No. Auckland says the moral and ethical station isn't a knowledge test. Knowing the four principles helps you explain your reasoning, but you won't be marked on naming theories.
What if I don't know anything about the topic?
Say what you'd want to know, reason from what's in the prompt, and be open about the gaps. That's better than guessing at facts.
Is there a right answer?
Usually there isn't one single right position. The marks come from how well you reason and how fairly you treat the other side.
If you want to practise ethics stations on camera with feedback on each answer, see how Cutline interview practice works.
Cutline is an independent study tool and is not affiliated with or endorsed by the University of Auckland or Kira Talent. Format details are from the University of Auckland's MMI pages, checked October 2026. The prompts here were written by Cutline for practice.
