Emergency exceptions to informed consent US Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Practice US Medical PG questions for Emergency exceptions to informed consent. These multiple choice questions (MCQs) cover important concepts and help you prepare for your exams.
Emergency exceptions to informed consent US Medical PG Question 1: A 76-year-old man is brought to the hospital after having a stroke. Head CT is done in the emergency department and shows intracranial hemorrhage. Upon arrival to the ED he is verbally non-responsive and withdraws only to pain. He does not open his eyes. He is transferred to the medical ICU for further management and intubated for airway protection. During his second day in the ICU, his blood pressure is measured as 91/54 mmHg and pulse is 120/min. He is given fluids and antibiotics, but he progresses to renal failure and his mental status deteriorates. The physicians in the ICU ask the patient’s family what his wishes are for end-of-life care. His wife tells the team that she is durable power of attorney for the patient and provides appropriate documentation. She mentions that he did not have a living will, but she believes that he would want care withdrawn in this situation, and therefore asks the team to withdraw care at this point. The patient’s daughter vehemently disagrees and believes it is in the best interest of her father, the patient, to continue all care. Based on this information, what is the best course of action for the physician team?
- A. Call other family members and consult them for their opinions
- B. Listen to the patient’s daughter’s wishes and continue all care
- C. Compromise between the wife and daughter and withdraw the fluids and antibiotics but keep the patient intubated
- D. Listen to the patient’s wife’s wishes and withdraw care (Correct Answer)
- E. Consult the hospital ethics committee and continue all care until a decision is reached
Emergency exceptions to informed consent Explanation: ***Listen to the patient’s wife’s wishes and withdraw care***
- The **durable power of attorney for healthcare** legally designates the wife as the patient's surrogate decision-maker when the patient lacks capacity, overriding other family opinions.
- In the absence of a living will, the **surrogate's interpretation of the patient's best interests** and previously expressed wishes is legally and ethically binding.
*Call other family members and consult them for their opinions*
- While involving family is good practice in general, the presence of a **legally appointed durable power of attorney** means that other family members' opinions do not supersede the designated surrogate's decisions.
- Consulting other family members could **create more conflict and delay** crucial decisions, as the wife holds the legal authority.
*Listen to the patient’s daughter’s wishes and continue all care*
- The daughter's wishes, while understandable, **do not hold legal authority** over the decisions of the legally appointed durable power of attorney.
- Disregarding the wife's authority would be a **breach of ethical and legal obligations** in patient care.
*Compromise between the wife and daughter and withdraw the fluids and antibiotics but keep the patient intubated*
- A compromise that goes against the legal surrogate's explicitly stated decision (to withdraw all care) is **ethically problematic and legally unsound**.
- Healthcare decisions should be based on the patient's best interest as interpreted by the **authorized surrogate**, not on attempting to please all family members.
*Consult the hospital ethics committee and continue all care until a decision is reached*
- While an ethics committee consult is appropriate if there's **disagreement over the interpretation of the patient's wishes** *among legally designated surrogates* or concerns about the surrogate's decision-making capacity, it's not the first step when a clear legal surrogate with documentation is present and makes a decision.
- Continuing all care against the wishes of the **legal proxy** would be contrary to patient autonomy and the principles of substituted judgment.
Emergency exceptions to informed consent US Medical PG Question 2: A 68-year-old man comes to the physician for a follow-up examination, accompanied by his daughter. Two years ago, he was diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, for which he underwent radiation therapy. He moved to the area 1 month ago to be closer to his daughter but continues to live independently. He was recently diagnosed with osteoblastic metastases to the spine and is scheduled to initiate therapy next week. In private, the patient’s daughter says that he has been losing weight and wetting the bed, and she tearfully asks the physician if his prostate cancer has returned. She says that her father has not spoken with her about his health recently. The patient has previously expressed to the physician that he does not want his family members to know about his condition because they “would worry too much.” Which of the following initial statements by the physician is most appropriate?
- A. “As your father's physician, I think that it's important that you know that his prostate cancer has returned. However, we are confident that he will respond well to treatment.”
- B. “I'm sorry, I can't discuss any information with you without his permission. I recommend that you have an open discussion with your father.” (Correct Answer)
- C. “It concerns me that he's not speaking openly with you. I recommend that you seek medical power of attorney for your father. Then, we can legally discuss his diagnosis and treatment options together.”
- D. “It’s difficult to deal with parents aging, but I have experience helping families cope. We should sit down with your father and discuss this situation together.”
- E. “Your father is very ill and may not want you to know the details. I can imagine it's frustrating for you, but you have to respect his discretion.”
Emergency exceptions to informed consent Explanation: ***“I'm sorry, I can't discuss any information with you without his permission. I recommend that you have an open discussion with your father.”***
- This statement upholds **patient confidentiality** and **autonomy**, as the patient explicitly stated he did not want his family to know about his condition.
- It encourages communication between the patient and his daughter, which is the most appropriate way for her to learn about his health status.
*“As your father's physician, I think that it's important that you know that his prostate cancer has returned. However, we are confident that he will respond well to treatment.”*
- This violates the patient's **confidentiality** and explicit wish to keep his medical information private from his family.
- Sharing medical information without explicit consent, even with family, is a breach of ethical and legal guidelines (e.g., **HIPAA** in the United States).
*“It concerns me that he's not speaking openly with you. I recommend that you seek medical power of attorney for your father. Then, we can legally discuss his diagnosis and treatment options together.”*
- While seeking medical power of attorney is an option for future decision-making, it is **premature and inappropriate** to suggest it solely to bypass the patient's current desire for confidentiality, especially when he is still competent to make his own decisions.
- This suggestion could undermine the patient's autonomy and trust in his physician.
*“It’s difficult to deal with parents aging, but I have experience helping families cope. We should sit down with your father and discuss this situation together.”*
- This statement, while empathetic, still risks undermining the patient's **autonomy** by pushing for a joint discussion against his explicit wishes to keep his family unaware.
- The physician's primary obligation is to the patient's stated preferences regarding his medical information.
*“Your father is very ill and may not want you to know the details. I can imagine it's frustrating for you, but you have to respect his discretion.”*
- While this statement acknowledges the daughter's feelings and respects the patient's discretion, it uses a somewhat **judgmental tone** ("very ill") and the phrasing "you have to respect his discretion" can come across as abrupt or dismissive rather than purely informative or guiding.
- The most appropriate initial response should focus on the **physician's inability to share information** due to confidentiality rather than attributing motives to the patient's decision or explicitly telling the daughter how to feel.
Emergency exceptions to informed consent US Medical PG Question 3: A 67-year-old man presents to the emergency department following an episode of chest pain and a loss of consciousness. The patient is in critical condition and his vital signs are rapidly deteriorating. It is known that the patient is currently undergoing chemotherapy for Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The patient is accompanied by his wife, who wants the medical staff to do everything to resuscitate the patient and bring him back. The patient also has 2 daughters, who are on their way to the hospital. The patient’s written advance directive states that the patient does not wish to be resuscitated or have any sort of life support. Which of the following is the appropriate course of action?
- A. Consult a judge
- B. Respect the patient’s advance directive orders (Correct Answer)
- C. Contact the patient’s siblings or other first-degree relatives
- D. Take into account the best medical decision made by the physician for the patient
- E. Respect the wife’s wishes and resuscitate the patient
Emergency exceptions to informed consent Explanation: ***Respect the patient’s advance directive orders***
- **Advance directives** legally document a patient's wishes regarding medical treatment, including end-of-life care, and must be honored if the patient is unable to make decisions.
- The patient's previously expressed autonomous decision, through a **written advance directive**, carries legal and ethical precedence over the wishes of family members or medical staff.
*Consult a judge*
- Consulting a judge is typically reserved for situations where there is **ambiguity or dispute** regarding the interpretation of an advance directive, or when no advance directive exists and family members disagree.
- In this case, the **written advance directive is clear**, making judicial intervention unnecessary.
*Contact the patient’s siblings or other first-degree relatives*
- Although family input can be valuable in some medical decisions, it does not **override a legally binding advance directive** made by the patient.
- The **patient's own wishes** are paramount, especially when clearly documented.
*Take into account the best medical decision made by the physician for the patient*
- While physicians provide medical expertise, patient **autonomy and established advance directives** take precedence over a physician's "best medical decision," especially regarding resuscitation.
- The physician's role here is to **implement the patient's documented wishes**, not to countermand them.
*Respect the wife’s wishes and resuscitate the patient*
- The wife's wishes, while important for emotional support, **do not legally or ethically supersede** the patient's explicit, written advance directive regarding resuscitation.
- Honoring the wife's request would violate the patient's **right to self-determination** and their previously stated wishes.
Emergency exceptions to informed consent US Medical PG Question 4: A 32-year-old man visits his primary care physician for a routine health maintenance examination. During the examination, he expresses concerns about not wanting to become a father. He has been sexually active and monogamous with his wife for the past 5 years, and they inconsistently use condoms for contraception. He tells the physician that he would like to undergo vasectomy. His wife is also a patient under the care of the physician and during her last appointment, she expressed concerns over being prescribed any drugs that could affect her fertility because she would like to conceive soon. Which of the following is the most appropriate action by the physician regarding this patient's wish to undergo vasectomy?
- A. Explain the procedure's benefits, alternatives, and potential complications (Correct Answer)
- B. Refer the patient to a psychotherapist to discuss his reluctance to have children
- C. Discourage the patient from undergoing the procedure because his wife wants children
- D. Insist that the patient returns with his wife to discuss the risks and benefits of the procedure together
- E. Call the patient's wife to obtain her consent for the procedure
Emergency exceptions to informed consent Explanation: ***Explain the procedure's benefits, alternatives, and potential complications***
- The physician's primary ethical obligation is to the individual patient, ensuring informed consent for any medical procedure. Providing comprehensive information about **vasectomy benefits, alternatives, and risks** allows the patient to make an autonomous decision.
- While patient-physician confidentiality generally prohibits disclosing specific details of one spouse's medical history to the other, the general knowledge that his wife desires children creates an important backdrop for the discussion. It is the patient's responsibility to consider this and convey this information to his wife.
*Refer the patient to a psychotherapist to discuss his reluctance to have children*
- It is **not appropriate** to assume the patient has a psychological issue solely based on his desire for a vasectomy, even with his wife's conflicting wishes. This action could be seen as judgmental and dismissive of the patient's autonomy.
- A patient's preference for sterilization, even if contrary to a partner's desires, does not inherently indicate a need for psychiatric evaluation unless there are other concerning psychological symptoms.
*Discourage the patient from undergoing the procedure because his wife wants children*
- **Discouraging** the patient based on his wife's wishes infringes upon the patient's **autonomy and reproductive rights**. The physician's role is to provide information and support the patient's informed decisions, not to act as a relationship counselor or impose personal values.
- Medical decisions, especially concerning fertility, are deeply personal, and a physician should not pressure a patient into a decision they do not want based on a partner's separate, yet relevant, wishes.
*Insist that the patient returns with his wife to discuss the risks and benefits of the procedure together*
- While open communication between spouses about reproductive decisions is beneficial, **insisting** on the wife's presence for the consultation undermines the patient's **confidentiality and individual autonomy**. The patient has the right to make medical decisions independently.
- The physician should encourage the patient to discuss this with his wife, but it is ultimately the patient's decision whether to involve her in the consultation for his procedure.
*Call the patient's wife to obtain her consent for the procedure*
- This action would be a **breach of patient confidentiality**. The physician cannot disclose information about the patient's decision or medical discussions with a third party, even a spouse, without the patient's explicit consent.
- A spouse's consent is **not legally or ethically required** for an individual to undergo a vasectomy in most jurisdictions, as it is a decision pertaining to the individual's body and reproductive rights.
Emergency exceptions to informed consent US Medical PG Question 5: A psychiatrist receives a call from a patient who expresses thoughts of harming his ex-girlfriend. The patient describes a detailed plan to attack her at her workplace. Which of the following represents the psychiatrist's most appropriate legal obligation?
- A. Warn the ex-girlfriend and notify law enforcement (Correct Answer)
- B. Only notify the patient's family
- C. Warn only law enforcement
- D. Maintain patient confidentiality
Emergency exceptions to informed consent Explanation: ***Warn the ex-girlfriend and notify law enforcement***
- This scenario directly triggers the **"duty to warn"** and **"duty to protect"** principles, primarily stemming from the **Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California** case.
- The psychiatrist has a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to protect the identifiable victim, which includes directly warning the intended victim and informing law enforcement.
*Only notify the patient's family*
- Notifying the patient's family alone does not fulfill the **legal obligation to protect** an identifiable third party from a serious threat of harm.
- While family involvement might be part of a comprehensive safety plan, it is insufficient as the sole action in this critical situation.
*Warn only law enforcement*
- While notifying law enforcement is a crucial step, the **Tarasoff duty** specifically mandates warning the **intended victim** directly (or those who can reasonably be expected to notify the victim).
- Relying solely on law enforcement might not ensure the immediate safety of the ex-girlfriend, especially if there's a delay in their response or ability to locate her.
*Maintain patient confidentiality*
- Patient confidentiality is a cornerstone of psychiatric practice, but it is **not absolute** when there is a serious and imminent threat of harm to an identifiable individual.
- The **duty to protect** a potential victim *outweighs* the duty to maintain confidentiality in such extreme circumstances.
Emergency exceptions to informed consent US Medical PG Question 6: A 32-year-old man is brought to the emergency department by the police for examination. The police have reason to believe he may have swallowed a large number of cocaine-containing capsules during an attempt to smuggle the drug across the border. They request an examination of the patient to determine if this is actually the case. The patient has no history of any serious illnesses and takes no medications. He does not smoke, drinks, or consume any drugs. He appears upset. His vital signs are within normal limits. Despite the pressure by the police, he refuses to undergo any further medical evaluation. Which of the following is the most appropriate next step in the evaluation of this patient?
- A. Examine the patient without his consent
- B. Request a court order from the police
- C. Obtain an abdominal X-ray
- D. Refuse to examine the patient
- E. Explain the risk of internal rupture to the patient (Correct Answer)
Emergency exceptions to informed consent Explanation: ***Explain the risk of internal rupture to the patient***
- The primary responsibility of the physician is to the **patient's well-being**, not to law enforcement. Before any action, the patient must be fully informed of the **potential life-threatening risks**, such as capsule rupture and overdose, associated with concealing drugs internally, especially if they are asymptomatic.
- This approach respects the patient's **autonomy** while ensuring they understand the gravity of their situation, potentially motivating them to reconsider their refusal for medical evaluation for their own safety.
*Examine the patient without his consent*
- Examining an **adult patient without their consent** is a violation of ethical principles and could constitute **assault and battery**, regardless of police requests or suspected criminal activity.
- The patient's **competence** to refuse care is not questioned, and there is no immediate indication of a medical emergency that would override his refusal, as his vital signs are stable and he is not in distress.
*Request a court order from the police*
- While a court order might compel some medical procedures in specific legal contexts, it generally does not override a competent patient's right to refuse medical care, especially when they are **asymptomatic** and not in immediate danger.
- The physician's immediate ethical duty is to the patient's health and safety, not to facilitate legal processes that could infringe on patient rights without clear medical necessity.
*Obtain an abdominal X-ray*
- An abdominal X-ray is a medical procedure that requires patient consent. Performing it without consent would be a breach of **medical ethics** and patient rights, even if requested by police.
- Although an X-ray could confirm the presence of foreign objects, it should not be performed before **informed consent** is obtained or before the patient understands the potential risks they face due to the suspected objects.
*Refuse to examine the patient*
- While the patient initially refused examination, simply refusing to examine him at all would be negligent as it indicates a failure to address the potential medical emergency presented by suspected internal drug smuggling.
- The physician has a duty to at least **educate the patient** about the severe health risks involved, allowing him to make an informed decision about further medical evaluation.
Emergency exceptions to informed consent US Medical PG Question 7: A 32-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department by her husband because of an episode of hematemesis 2 hours ago. She has had dyspepsia for 2 years. Her medications include occasional ibuprofen for headaches. After initial stabilization, the risks and benefits of upper endoscopy and alternative treatments, including no therapy, are explained thoroughly. She shows a good understanding of her condition and an appreciation of endoscopic treatment and its complications. She decides that she wants to have an endoscopy to find the source of bleeding and appropriately manage the ulcer. Her medical records show advance directives that she signed 3 years ago; her sister, who is a nurse, has a durable power of attorney. Regarding obtaining informed consent, which of the following is the most accurate conclusion for providing endoscopic treatment for this patient?
- A. There are reasons to believe that she may not have decision-making capacity
- B. Endoscopic treatment may be performed without further action
- C. Her sister must sign the consent form
- D. Documentation of her decision prior to treatment is required (Correct Answer)
- E. Her decision to have an endoscopy is not voluntary
Emergency exceptions to informed consent Explanation: **Documentation of her decision prior to treatment is required**
- The patient has been fully informed, understands her condition, and has expressed a clear desire for the procedure, demonstrating **decision-making capacity**.
- To ensure ethical and legal compliance, her **informed consent** must be accurately documented in her medical record before any invasive treatment, including endoscopy, is performed.
*There are reasons to believe that she may not have decision-making capacity*
- The patient has clearly demonstrated **understanding of her condition, treatment options, and potential complications**, which indicates preserved decision-making capacity.
- Despite the acute medical situation, her ability to articulate her preference after a thorough discussion confirms her competence for informed consent.
*Endoscopic treatment may be performed without further action*
- While the patient has consented verbally, this does not negate the need for proper **documentation of informed consent** before initiating the procedure.
- Legally and ethically, a verbal agreement alone is insufficient; a signed consent form or detailed chart note confirming her understanding and decision is essential.
*Her sister must sign the consent form*
- Her sister, holding a **durable power of attorney**, would only be authorized to make medical decisions if the patient were deemed to lack **decision-making capacity**.
- Since the patient clearly demonstrates the ability to make her own medical decisions, her sister's consent is not required and would override the patient's autonomy.
*Her decision to have an endoscopy is not voluntary*
- The scenario explicitly states that the risks and benefits were **thoroughly explained**, and she shows a "good understanding" and "appreciation of endoscopic treatment."
- Her decision to "want to have an endoscopy" despite knowing the alternatives suggests a **voluntary and informed choice**, not coercion.
Emergency exceptions to informed consent US Medical PG Question 8: A 74-year-old man is brought to the emergency department after he had copious amounts of blood-stained stools. Minutes later, he turned sweaty, felt light-headed, and collapsed into his wife’s arms. Upon admission, he is found to have a blood pressure of 78/40 mm Hg, a pulse of 140/min, and oxygen saturation of 98%. His family history is relevant for both gastric and colorectal cancer. His personal history is relevant for hypertension, for which he takes amlodipine. After an initial successful resuscitation with intravenous fluids, which of the following should be the first step in approaching this case?
- A. Radionuclide imaging
- B. Mesenteric angiography
- C. Upper endoscopy (Correct Answer)
- D. Colonoscopy
- E. Nasogastric lavage
Emergency exceptions to informed consent Explanation: ***Upper endoscopy***
- After **initial hemodynamic stabilization** (as stated in the question), **early upper endoscopy** is the recommended first-line approach for patients with acute GI bleeding.
- **Upper GI sources** must be ruled out first, even in patients presenting with hematochezia (blood-stained stools), as **10-15% of cases** with bright red blood per rectum originate from an upper GI source.
- Upper endoscopy is both **diagnostic and therapeutic**, allowing for immediate intervention (banding, sclerotherapy, thermal coagulation, clipping) if a bleeding source is identified.
- **Current ACG/ASGE guidelines** recommend endoscopy **within 24 hours** (ideally within 12 hours) after resuscitation in patients with acute upper GI bleeding.
- The degree of **hemodynamic instability** in this patient (BP 78/40, HR 140) suggests a brisk bleed more consistent with an upper GI source.
*Nasogastric lavage*
- NG lavage has **low sensitivity (42-84%)** for upper GI bleeding and can miss up to 15% of cases.
- It is **no longer routinely recommended** by current guidelines as it delays definitive diagnosis and treatment without providing therapeutic benefit.
- Modern practice favors proceeding directly to endoscopy after stabilization rather than performing NG lavage first.
*Radionuclide imaging*
- **Tagged RBC scan** is useful for **intermittent or slow bleeding** (0.1-0.5 mL/min) when endoscopy is non-diagnostic.
- Not appropriate as the **first step** in an acute, massive bleed requiring immediate source localization and potential intervention.
- Provides localization but no therapeutic capability.
*Mesenteric angiography*
- Indicated for **active, brisk bleeding** (>0.5-1 mL/min) when endoscopy fails to identify the source or when immediate therapeutic embolization is needed.
- Can be both diagnostic and therapeutic but is typically a **second-line intervention** after endoscopy.
- Requires active bleeding at the time of the procedure to visualize the source.
*Colonoscopy*
- **Colonoscopy** is the appropriate diagnostic tool for **lower GI bleeding** after upper GI sources have been excluded.
- Should be performed **after upper endoscopy** rules out an upper source, particularly in patients with this degree of hemodynamic compromise.
- Requires adequate bowel preparation for optimal visualization, which may delay diagnosis.
Emergency exceptions to informed consent US Medical PG Question 9: A researcher is studying the brains of patients who recently died from stroke-related causes. One specimen has a large thrombus in an area of the brain that is important in relaying many modalities of sensory information from the periphery to the sensory cortex. Which of the following embryologic structures gave rise to the part of the brain in question?
- A. Metencephalon
- B. Diencephalon (Correct Answer)
- C. Mesencephalon
- D. Telencephalon
- E. Myelencephalon
Emergency exceptions to informed consent Explanation: ***Diencephalon***
- The **thalamus**, a key relay center for sensory information to the cerebral cortex, develops from the diencephalon.
- A thrombus in this area would severely impair the transmission of **sensory modalities** from the periphery.
*Metencephalon*
- The metencephalon gives rise to the **pons** and the **cerebellum**.
- These structures are primarily involved in motor control, coordination, and respiratory regulation, not direct sensory relay to the cortex.
*Mesencephalon*
- The mesencephalon develops into the **midbrain**.
- The midbrain contains structures involved in visual and auditory reflexes, and motor control, but not the primary sensory relay described.
*Myelencephalon*
- The myelencephalon gives rise to the **medulla oblongata**.
- The medulla is crucial for vital autonomic functions (e.g., breathing, heart rate) and connects the brain to the spinal cord.
*Telencephalon*
- The telencephalon develops into the **cerebral hemispheres** (cerebral cortex, basal ganglia, hippocampus).
- While it processes sensory information, it is not the primary relay center from the periphery; that role belongs to the thalamus.
Emergency exceptions to informed consent US Medical PG Question 10: A 68-year-old man comes to the emergency department because of sudden onset abdominal pain for 6 hours. On a 10-point scale, he rates the pain as a 8 to 9. The abdominal pain is worst in the right upper quadrant. He has atrial fibrillation and hyperlipidemia. His temperature is 38.7° C (101.7°F), pulse is 110/min, and blood pressure is 146/86 mm Hg. The patient appears acutely ill. Physical examination shows a distended abdomen and tenderness to palpation in all quadrants with guarding, but no rebound. Murphy's sign is positive. Right upper quadrant ultrasound shows thickening of the gallbladder wall, sludging in the gallbladder, and pericolic fat stranding. He is admitted for acute cholecystitis and grants permission for cholecystectomy. His wife is his healthcare power of attorney (POA), but she is out of town on a business trip. He is accompanied today by his brother. After induction and anesthesia, the surgeon removes the gallbladder but also finds a portion of the small intestine is necrotic due to a large thromboembolism occluding a branch of the superior mesenteric artery. The treatment is additional surgery with small bowel resection and thromboendarterectomy. Which of the following is the most appropriate next step in management?
- A. Decrease the patient's sedation until he is able to give consent
- B. Contact the patient's healthcare POA to consent
- C. Proceed with additional surgery without obtaining consent (Correct Answer)
- D. Ask the patient's brother in the waiting room to consent
- E. Close the patient and obtain re-consent for a second operation
Emergency exceptions to informed consent Explanation: ***Proceed with additional surgery without obtaining consent***
- In an **emergency situation** where immediate intervention is required to save a patient's life or prevent serious harm, and the patient **lacks capacity** to consent, explicit consent for additional necessary procedures is not required. The surgeon can proceed based on the principle of **implied consent** in emergencies.
- The discovery of **necrotic small bowel due to thromboembolism** is a life-threatening condition requiring urgent surgical intervention in an already sedated patient, making it an emergency.
*Decrease the patient's sedation until he is able to give consent*
- Decreasing sedation to obtain consent in this critical situation would cause a **dangerous delay** in treating a life-threatening condition (bowel necrosis) and could lead to worsening outcomes or death.
- The patient is **acutely ill** and likely in a state where he cannot grasp information and make decisions, even with reduced sedation, thus true informed consent would be difficult to obtain quickly.
*Contact the patient's healthcare POA to consent*
- Contacting the POA who is out of town would introduce **significant and potentially fatal delays** in treating a rapidly progressing, life-threatening condition.
- While POAs are crucial for non-emergent decision-making, the **principle of preserving life** takes precedence in an acute emergency when a delay would cause irreversible harm.
*Ask the patient's brother in the waiting room to consent*
- The brother is **not the designated healthcare POA** and there is no indication he has legal authority to make medical decisions for the patient.
- Relying on a non-POA family member for consent in an emergency, when the patient's legally appointed surrogate is known, is generally **not the appropriate first step** unless no other option exists and the brother can confirm the patient's wishes from prior discussions, which is not stated.
*Close the patient and obtain re-consent for a second operation*
- Closing the patient and then re-opening for another surgery would expose the patient to **two separate anesthetic events and surgical procedures**, significantly increasing morbidity and mortality risks compared to continuous surgery.
- This option would also introduce an **unacceptable delay** in addressing the acute bowel necrosis, which requires immediate intervention.
More Emergency exceptions to informed consent US Medical PG questions available in the OnCourse app. Practice MCQs, flashcards, and get detailed explanations.
