A new technology allows for the complete erasure of traumatic memories. Discuss the ethical implications of making such a procedure widely available.

Where answers to this question lose points

Our scorer marks every answer on three parts. For each of the 78 applicants who finished this question on Confetto, we took their first scored answer and counted the part that scored lowest.

• Structure: a clear order and a clear point44 of 78

Confetto data as of November 8, 2026. A part is shown only when 20 or more applicants share it. Answers where two parts tied are not counted toward either. We never show anyone's answers or details.

What this question tests

• Ethics
• Critical thinking
• Medical ethics

How to structure your answer

1. What it's about (15 seconds). The question asks whether traumatic memory erasure should be widely available, balancing relief for people suffering from trauma against risks to identity, consent, and freedom from coercion. The answer opens with cautious optimism, recognizing both therapeutic promise and serious unintended consequences.
2. Both sides (40 seconds). The strongest case for availability is relief from debilitating trauma when traditional therapy fails, illustrated by friends whose PTSD affects relationships, employment, and daily life. Against this, the answer raises changes to identity and resilience, uncertain consent, and possible coercion by employers or authoritarian governments.
3. Your position (20 seconds). The answer supports carefully restricted access for severe cases, such as treatment-resistant PTSD, rather than immediate widespread availability. Its main reason is that profound suffering warrants exploring the technology, but uncertain psychological consequences require research and strong safeguards.
4. Its downside (15 seconds). Restricting access could delay relief for people whose traumatic memories continue to cause serious suffering, although the answer leaves this cost implicit. It softens that restriction by proposing access for severe cases alongside research, ethical guidelines, mandatory waiting periods, and multiple medical opinions.
5. What would change it (10 seconds). The answer implies that convincing long-term evidence about psychological consequences, together with reliable protections for consent, could justify broader availability. It calls for longitudinal studies and robust regulation, but does not explicitly state a particular finding that would change its cautious position.
6. Common pitfalls. A flat yes or no before weighing both sides would miss the tension between relieving severe suffering and protecting identity and autonomy. Treating concerns about resilience as a reason to dismiss PTSD, or ending with vague caution rather than a clear access policy, would also weaken this answer.

Example answer from Confetto

Example answer from Confetto. Not a real applicant's answer.

When I first hear about this technology, I'm immediately struck by both its incredible potential and the profound ethical questions it raises. My initial reaction is one of cautious optimism mixed with serious concern about unintended consequences.

I believe the most compelling argument for making this procedure available is the genuine suffering that traumatic memories can cause. I've seen friends struggle with PTSD and know how debilitating these memories can be - preventing people from forming relationships, holding jobs, or simply living without constant fear. If this technology could offer relief where traditional therapy hasn't worked, I think we have a moral obligation to explore it carefully.

However, I'm deeply concerned about several ethical implications. Memory shapes who we are as individuals, and I worry about the long-term psychological effects of selective memory erasure. What happens to our capacity for growth and resilience if we can simply delete difficult experiences? I also think about the potential for coercion - could employers pressure workers to erase memories of workplace injuries, or could authoritarian governments use this to suppress memories of human rights violations?

The question of informed consent particularly troubles me. How can someone truly consent to erasing a part of themselves when we don't fully understand the consequences? I believe we'd need extensive longitudinal studies and robust regulatory frameworks before widespread implementation.

If I were involved in developing policy around this technology, I would advocate for starting with the most severe cases - perhaps terminal patients suffering from trauma or individuals with treatment-resistant PTSD - while conducting careful research. I think we need comprehensive ethical guidelines, mandatory waiting periods, and multiple medical opinions before any procedure.

Ultimately, I believe this technology represents both tremendous hope and significant risk, requiring us to proceed with extraordinary caution and wisdom.

Use it for its structure. Interviewers can tell a memorized script, so tell your own story.

Keep going

• A patient refuses a life-saving vaccination for their child based on personal beliefs. How do you balance the parents' autonomy with the child's well-being and public health concerns?
• At the beginning of your last year of undergraduate studies, the Dean of your Faculty has offered to all of you the opportunity to swallow a red pill. If swallowed, this pill would enormously increase your ability to absorb all the educational material being presented to you in all your courses. In fact, this pill would basically guarantee that you would receive an A+ in all your future courses with a significantly reduced workload. Would you take the red pill?
• Some argue that physicians, given their position in society, have a duty to be role models for healthy living. Do you agree or disagree?
• Medical school interview questions by type
• The full interview question bank