Surrogate decision-makers US Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Practice US Medical PG questions for Surrogate decision-makers. These multiple choice questions (MCQs) cover important concepts and help you prepare for your exams.
Surrogate decision-makers US Medical PG Question 1: A 5-year-old child is brought to the emergency department after being hit by a motor vehicle on the way to school. According to paramedics, the child's right leg was severely crushed in the accident. After evaluation, the physician recommends immediate limb-saving surgery to preserve the leg and prevent complications. However, the parents refuse to consent to the surgery. They explain that they heard about a similar case where a child died after limb-saving surgery, and they believe the procedure might lead to amputation or death. Despite the physician's explanation that the surgery is intended to save the limb, the parents remain adamant in their refusal. What is the next best step?
- A. Contact the next of kin
- B. Ask for a court order
- C. Take into account the child’s wishes
- D. Take the parents' wishes into account
- E. Inform the hospital Ethics Committee, state authority, and child protective services, and obtain a court order to proceed with treatment (Correct Answer)
Surrogate decision-makers Explanation: ***Inform the hospital Ethics Committee, state authority, and child protective services, and obtain a court order to proceed with treatment***
- When parents refuse **life-saving or limb-saving treatment** for a child, and the medical team believes the treatment is in the child's best interest, the case becomes a legal and ethical concern requiring immediate institutional and legal intervention.
- The appropriate response involves **multiple parallel actions**: contacting the hospital **Ethics Committee** for guidance, notifying **Child Protective Services (CPS)** for suspected medical neglect, and seeking a **court order** to authorize treatment.
- This comprehensive approach protects the child's welfare while respecting legal procedures. **Medical neglect** constitutes a form of child abuse, and the state has parens patriae authority to protect minor citizens when parents' decisions threaten serious harm.
- In true life-threatening emergencies where delay would cause death or serious harm, physicians may proceed under emergency doctrine, but for urgent situations allowing time for legal process, a court order should be obtained.
*Contact the next of kin*
- While contacting other family members might provide support or alternative perspectives, it does not address the immediate legal and ethical obligations when parents refuse medically necessary care.
- The parents are the legal guardians, and their refusal necessitates formal institutional and legal intervention rather than informal family consultation.
*Ask for a court order*
- While obtaining a **court order** is essential when parental consent is refused for necessary treatment, this option alone is incomplete.
- The most appropriate immediate response involves the **comprehensive institutional approach**: simultaneously engaging the Ethics Committee for guidance, notifying CPS for child protection, and initiating the legal process for court authorization.
- This multi-pronged approach ensures all stakeholders are involved and the child's interests are protected through proper channels.
*Take into account the child's wishes*
- A 5-year-old child lacks the **developmental capacity and legal standing** for informed consent regarding complex medical procedures.
- While assent from older minors (typically 7+ years) may be considered for less critical decisions, a 5-year-old's wishes regarding limb-saving surgery are not determinative.
- The focus must remain on the child's **best medical interest** as determined by medical professionals and legal frameworks, not the child's limited understanding at this developmental stage.
*Take the parents' wishes into account*
- While parental autonomy in medical decision-making is generally respected, this principle has limits when parental decisions would result in **significant harm, neglect, or death** to the child.
- When parents refuse **medically indicated, life-saving, or limb-saving treatment**, their decision can and should be legally challenged through appropriate institutional and judicial channels to protect the child's welfare.
- The state's interest in protecting children overrides parental preferences when those preferences threaten serious harm.
Surrogate decision-makers US Medical PG Question 2: 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
Surrogate decision-makers 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.
Surrogate decision-makers 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
Surrogate decision-makers 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.
Surrogate decision-makers US Medical PG Question 4: A 15-year-old teenager presents to the emergency department via emergency medical service (EMS) after a motor vehicle accident. The patient is in critical condition and is hemodynamically unstable. It becomes apparent that the patient may require a blood transfusion, and the parents are approached for consent. They are Jehovah’s Witnesses and deny the blood transfusion, saying it is against their beliefs. However, the patient insists that she wants the transfusion if it will save her life. Despite the patient’s wishes, the parents remain steadfast in their refusal to allow the transfusion. Which of the following is the most appropriate course of action?
- A. Obtain a court order to give blood products. (Correct Answer)
- B. Give the patient the blood transfusion.
- C. Give intravenous fluids to attempt to stabilize the patient.
- D. Do not give blood transfusion due to the parents’ refusal.
- E. Consult the hospital ethics committee.
Surrogate decision-makers Explanation: ***Obtain a court order to give blood products.***
- In situations where a minor's life is at risk and parents refuse life-saving treatment, seeking a **court order** is the most appropriate action to protect the child's best interests.
- This step allows the medical team to proceed with the necessary treatment despite parental objections, balancing the parents' religious freedom with the state's interest in protecting children.
*Give the patient the blood transfusion.*
- Directly proceeding with the transfusion without legal intervention against parental wishes for a minor could lead to **legal ramifications** and accusations of battery or lack of informed consent.
- While the patient expresses a wish for the transfusion, due to her minor status, parental consent or a court order is generally required before proceeding against parental refusal.
*Give intravenous fluids to attempt to stabilize the patient.*
- While supportive measures like **intravenous fluids** are important, they may not be sufficient to stabilize a hemodynamically unstable patient requiring a blood transfusion.
- Delaying definitive, necessary treatment in a critical situation can worsen the patient's condition and is not a substitute for addressing the need for blood products.
*Do not give blood transfusion due to the parents’ refusal.*
- Refusing to provide life-saving treatment to a minor when a less invasive alternative is unavailable, solely based on parental religious beliefs and despite the child's expressed wishes, could be considered **medical neglect** and runs contrary to the medical obligation to preserve life.
- Even if the parents are steadfast, the healthcare team has an ethical and legal obligation to advocate for the minor's well-being, especially when the minor explicitly requests the treatment.
*Consult the hospital ethics committee.*
- While an **ethics committee** consultation is valuable for complex ethical dilemmas, it is typically a time-consuming process that may not be feasible for a critically ill, hemodynamically unstable patient requiring immediate intervention.
- In urgent, life-threatening situations involving minors, the immediate priority is to secure the necessary treatment, often through direct legal channels, rather than waiting for an ethics committee review.
Surrogate decision-makers US Medical PG Question 5: 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
Surrogate decision-makers 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.
Surrogate decision-makers US Medical PG Question 6: A 57-year-old man presents to his oncologist to discuss management of small cell lung cancer. The patient is a lifelong smoker and was diagnosed with cancer 1 week ago. The patient states that the cancer was his fault for smoking and that there is "no hope now." He seems disinterested in discussing the treatment options and making a plan for treatment and followup. The patient says "he does not want any treatment" for his condition. Which of the following is the most appropriate response from the physician?
- A. "You seem upset at the news of this diagnosis. I want you to go home and discuss this with your loved ones and come back when you feel ready to make a plan together for your care."
- B. "It must be tough having received this diagnosis; however, new cancer therapies show increased efficacy and excellent outcomes."
- C. "It must be very challenging having received this diagnosis. I want to work with you to create a plan." (Correct Answer)
- D. "We are going to need to treat your lung cancer. I am here to help you throughout the process."
- E. "I respect your decision and we will not administer any treatment. Let me know if I can help in any way."
Surrogate decision-makers Explanation: ***"It must be very challenging having received this diagnosis. I want to work with you to create a plan."***
- This response **acknowledges the patient's emotional distress** and feelings of guilt and hopelessness, which is crucial for building rapport and trust.
- It also gently **re-engages the patient** by offering a collaborative approach to treatment, demonstrating the physician's commitment to supporting him through the process.
*"You seem upset at the news of this diagnosis. I want you to go home and discuss this with your loved ones and come back when you feel ready to make a plan together for your care."*
- While acknowledging distress, sending the patient home without further engagement **delays urgent care** for small cell lung cancer, which is aggressive.
- This response might be perceived as dismissive of his immediate feelings and can **exacerbate his sense of hopelessness** and isolation.
*"It must be tough having received this diagnosis; however, new cancer therapies show increased efficacy and excellent outcomes."*
- This statement moves too quickly to treatment efficacy without adequately addressing the patient's current **emotional state and fatalism**.
- While factual, it **lacks empathy** for his personal feelings of blame and hopelessness, potentially making him feel unheard.
*"We are going to need to treat your lung cancer. I am here to help you throughout the process."*
- This response is **too directive and authoritarian**, which can alienate a patient who is already feeling guilty and resistant to treatment.
- It fails to acknowledge his stated feelings of "no hope now" or his disinterest in treatment, which are critical to address before discussing the necessity of treatment.
*"I respect your decision and we will not administer any treatment. Let me know if I can help in any way."*
- While respecting patient autonomy is vital, immediately accepting a patient's decision to refuse treatment without exploring the underlying reasons (e.g., guilt, hopelessness, lack of information) is **premature and potentially harmful**.
- The physician has a responsibility to ensure the patient is making an informed decision, especially for a rapidly progressing condition like small cell lung cancer.
Surrogate decision-makers US Medical PG Question 7: A 68-year-old woman was recently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. At what point should her physician initiate a discussion with her regarding advance directive planning?
- A. Once she enters hospice
- B. Now that she is ill, speaking about advance directives is no longer an option
- C. Only if her curative surgical and medical treatment fails
- D. Only if she initiates the conversation
- E. At this visit (Correct Answer)
Surrogate decision-makers Explanation: ***At this visit***
- Advance care planning should ideally be initiated as soon as a **serious illness** like pancreatic cancer is diagnosed, while the patient still has the capacity to make informed decisions.
- This allows the patient to clearly state their **wishes** for future medical care and designate a **surrogate decision-maker**.
*Once she enters hospice*
- Delaying discussions until hospice care often means the patient's condition has significantly deteriorated, potentially impacting their ability to actively participate in **decision-making**.
- While advance directives are crucial for hospice patients, starting earlier ensures their preferences guide all stages of their care, not just the end-of-life phase.
*Now that she is ill, speaking about advance directives is no longer an option*
- This statement is incorrect as illness is often the **catalyst** for initiating advance care planning, not a barrier.
- Patients often appreciate the opportunity to discuss their wishes, especially when facing a serious diagnosis, to maintain a sense of **control** and ensure their autonomy.
*Only if her curative surgical and medical treatment fails*
- Waiting until treatment failure is too late as the patient's condition may have worsened to a point where they are no longer able to engage in **meaningful discussions** or have decreased mental capacity.
- Advance care planning is about preparing for potential future scenarios, not just reacting to immediate failures; it provides a framework for care regardless of **treatment outcomes**.
*Only if she initiates the conversation*
- While patient initiation is ideal, it is the physician's responsibility to bring up these important discussions, especially with a new diagnosis of a serious illness like **pancreatic cancer**.
- Many patients may not know about advance directives or feel comfortable initiating such a sensitive conversation, so the physician should proactively offer the **opportunity**.
Surrogate decision-makers US Medical PG Question 8: A terminally ill patient with advanced cancer requests that no resuscitation be performed in the event of cardiac arrest. The patient is mentally competent and has completed advance directives. A family member later demands full resuscitation efforts. Which of the following is the most appropriate response?
- A. Honor the patient's DNR (Correct Answer)
- B. Obtain court order
- C. Follow the family's wishes
- D. Consult ethics committee
Surrogate decision-makers Explanation: ***Honor the patient's DNR***
- The patient is **mentally competent** and has legally documented their wishes through **advance directives** (DNR), which must be respected.
- A competent patient's right to **autonomy** in making decisions about their medical care takes precedence over the wishes of family members.
*Obtain court order*
- Seeking a court order is **unnecessary** and **inappropriate** when a competent patient's wishes are clearly documented in advance directives.
- This option would cause **undue delay** and legal entanglement, potentially going against the patient's immediate medical needs and preferences.
*Follow the family's wishes*
- Following the family's wishes would **override the patient's autonomy** and legally binding advance directives.
- The family's emotional distress does not negate the patient's right to determine their own medical care, especially when they are competent.
*Consult ethics committee*
- While an ethics committee can be helpful in complex cases with **unclear directives** or patient capacity issues, it's not the first step here.
- The patient's competence and clear advance directives make the decision straightforward; a committee consultation could cause delay and unnecessary burden.
Surrogate decision-makers US Medical PG Question 9: A 72-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department by ambulance after an unexpected fall at home 1 hour ago. She was resuscitated at the scene by paramedics before being transferred to the hospital. She has a history of ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. She has not taken any sedative medications. Her GCS is 6. She is connected to a mechanical ventilator. Her medical records show that she signed a living will 5 years ago, which indicates her refusal to receive any type of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, intubation, or maintenance of life support on mechanical ventilation. Her son, who has a durable power-of-attorney for her healthcare decisions, objects to the discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and wishes that his mother be kept alive without suffering in the chance that she might recover. Which of the following is the most appropriate response to her son regarding his wishes for his mother?
- A. “We will take every measure necessary to prolong her life.”
- B. “She may be eligible for hospice care.”
- C. “The opinion of her primary care physician must be obtained regarding further steps in management.”
- D. “Based on her wishes, mechanical ventilation must be discontinued.” (Correct Answer)
- E. “Further management decisions will be referred to the hospital’s ethics committee.”
Surrogate decision-makers Explanation: ***Based on her wishes, mechanical ventilation must be discontinued.***
- A **living will** is a legally binding document that outlines a patient's wishes regarding medical treatment, including **refusal of life support**.
- In this scenario, the patient’s clear and documented wishes in her living will take precedence over the son's objections, even though he holds **durable power of attorney for healthcare** (DPA).
*“We will take every measure necessary to prolong her life.”*
- This statement directly contradicts the patient's **documented wishes** in her living will to refuse intubation and maintenance on mechanical ventilation.
- Ignoring a patient's advance directive can lead to ethical and legal issues, as it undermines the principle of **patient autonomy**.
*“She may be eligible for hospice care.”*
- While hospice care is a relevant consideration for patients with terminal illnesses, suggesting it prematurely without addressing the immediate issue of the **living will** can be dismissive of the patient's explicit directives.
- The primary concern is upholding the patient's autonomy, which includes addressing her advance directive regarding **withdrawal of life support**.
*“The opinion of her primary care physician must be obtained regarding further steps in management.”*
- While the **primary care physician's** input is valuable for understanding the patient's overall health and discussing goals of care, the existence of a clear and legally binding **living will** simplifies the decision-making process concerning life support.
- The patient's advance directive is paramount and generally does not require further medical negotiation unless there's ambiguity or new information suggesting a change in her wishes.
*“Further management decisions will be referred to the hospital’s ethics committee.”*
- An **ethics committee** consultation may be appropriate in cases of ambiguity surrounding an advance directive, conflict among surrogates, or uncertainty about the patient's capacity at the time of signing the directive.
- However, in this case, the **living will** explicitly states her wishes regarding mechanical ventilation, making the patient's intent clear and generally overriding the need for an ethics committee in the initial response.
Surrogate decision-makers US Medical PG Question 10: 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
Surrogate decision-makers 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.
More Surrogate decision-makers US Medical PG questions available in the OnCourse app. Practice MCQs, flashcards, and get detailed explanations.
