Conflicts of interest US Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Practice US Medical PG questions for Conflicts of interest. These multiple choice questions (MCQs) cover important concepts and help you prepare for your exams.
Conflicts of interest US Medical PG Question 1: A longstanding patient of yours has been hospitalized for a week with pneumonia. You have taken care of her while she was in the hospital. At the end of her hospitalization, she tells you how grateful she is for your care and gives you a small gift basket with homemade food, which you accept. However, when you get home, you realize that the basket also contains a $250 gift certificate to an expensive restaurant. Which of the following is an appropriate response to this situation?
- A. Return both the food and gift certificate because it is never acceptable to take gifts from patients
- B. Return the gift certificate for cash, and donate the cash to the hospital's free clinic
- C. Keep the food, but return the gift certificate (Correct Answer)
- D. Keep both the food and gift certificate
- E. Report the gifts to your hospital ethics committee
Conflicts of interest Explanation: ***Keep the food, but return the gift certificate***
- It is generally ethically acceptable to accept **small gifts** of minimal value, especially those that are homemade or symbolic, as they can represent a patient's gratitude and help build rapport. The **homemade food** falls into this category.
- However, accepting gifts of **significant monetary value** (like a $250 gift certificate) from patients is usually discouraged as it can create a perception of obligation, influence medical decisions, or exploit the power imbalance inherent in the doctor-patient relationship. These gifts should be respectfully declined or returned.
*Return both the food and gift certificate because it is never acceptable to take gifts from patients*
- This statement is too extreme; while large gifts are problematic, **small tokens of appreciation** like homemade food are generally permissible and can be beneficial for the therapeutic relationship.
- Rejecting all gifts can sometimes be perceived as ungracious or insensitive, potentially harming the **patient-doctor relationship**.
*Return the gift certificate for cash, and donate the cash to the hospital's free clinic*
- While the intent to donate is admirable, **converting the gift certificate to cash** and then donating it still involves accepting the monetary value of the gift.
- This approach does not address the core ethical issue of receiving a **significant financial gift** directly from a patient, which could still create a perceived conflict of interest.
*Keep both the food and gift certificate*
- Keeping the food is acceptable, but accepting a **$250 gift certificate** is problematic due to its substantial monetary value.
- Such a gift could raise concerns about undue influence, the **appearance of impropriety**, or blurring professional boundaries.
*Report the gifts to your hospital ethics committee*
- While reporting to an ethics committee is appropriate for **significant ethical dilemmas** or violations, accepting a patient's food while returning a gift certificate of high value is a more straightforward ethical decision within established guidelines.
- This situation can typically be handled by the physician directly, in accordance with common **ethical principles regarding gifts** from patients, without the need for a formal report to a committee unless there are further complicating factors or uncertainties.
Conflicts of interest 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.”
Conflicts of interest 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.
Conflicts of interest US Medical PG Question 3: An 83-year-old man presents to the gastroenterologist to follow-up on results from a biopsy of a pancreatic head mass, which the clinician was concerned could be pancreatic cancer. After welcoming the patient and his wife to the clinic, the physician begins to discuss the testing and leads into delivering the results, which showed metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Before she is able to disclose these findings, the patient stops her and exclaims, "Whatever it is, I don't want to know. Please just make me comfortable in my last months alive. I have made up my mind about this." Which of the following is the most appropriate response on the part of the physician?
- A. "If that is your definite wish, then I must honor it" (Correct Answer)
- B. "The cancer has spread to your liver"
- C. "As a physician, I am obligated to disclose these results to you"
- D. "If you don't know what condition you have, I will be unable to be your physician going forward"
- E. "Please, sir, I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision"
Conflicts of interest Explanation: ***"If that is your definite wish, then I must honor it"***
- This response respects the patient's **autonomy** and right to refuse information, aligning with ethical principles of patient-centered care.
- The patient has clearly and articulately stated his desire not to know and wishes for **palliative care**, which the physician should respect.
- The patient appears to have **decision-making capacity** based on his clear communication of wishes.
*"The cancer has spread to your liver"*
- This statement violates the patient's explicit request not to be informed of his diagnosis, potentially causing distress and undermining trust.
- Disclosure of information against a patient's wishes is unethical when the patient has **decision-making capacity** and has clearly refused information.
*"As a physician, I am obligated to disclose these results to you"*
- While physicians have a general duty to inform, this is superseded by a **competent patient's right to refuse information**.
- No absolute obligation exists to force information upon a patient who explicitly states a desire not to know, especially when it concerns their own health information.
*"If you don't know what condition you have, I will be unable to be your physician going forward"*
- This response is coercive and threatening, attempting to strong-arm the patient into accepting information he has refused.
- A physician's role includes managing symptoms and providing comfort, even if the patient chooses not to know the full diagnostic details of their condition, particularly in a **palliative care** context.
- This statement could constitute **patient abandonment**, which is unethical.
*"Please, sir, I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision"*
- While it's acceptable to ensure the patient fully understands the implications of their decision, a forceful "urge to reconsider" after a clear refusal can be seen as undermining their **autonomy**.
- The physician should confirm the patient's understanding and offer an opportunity to discuss it later if desired, rather than immediately pressuring them.
Conflicts of interest US Medical PG Question 4: A researcher is trying to determine whether a newly discovered substance X can be useful in promoting wound healing after surgery. She conducts this study by enrolling the next 100 patients that will be undergoing this surgery and separating them into 2 groups. She decides which patient will be in which group by using a random number generator. Subsequently, she prepares 1 set of syringes with the novel substance X and 1 set of syringes with a saline control. Both of these sets of syringes are unlabeled and the substances inside cannot be distinguished. She gives the surgeon performing the surgery 1 of the syringes and does not inform him nor the patient which syringe was used. After the study is complete, she analyzes all the data that was collected and performs statistical analysis. This study most likely provides which level of evidence for use of substance X?
- A. Level 3
- B. Level 1 (Correct Answer)
- C. Level 4
- D. Level 5
- E. Level 2
Conflicts of interest Explanation: ***Level 1***
- The study design described is a **randomized controlled trial (RCT)**, which is considered the **highest level of evidence (Level 1)** in the hierarchy of medical evidence.
- Key features like **randomization**, **control group**, and **blinding (double-blind)** help minimize bias and strengthen the validity of the findings.
*Level 2*
- Level 2 evidence typically comprises **well-designed controlled trials without randomization** (non-randomized controlled trials) or **high-quality cohort studies**.
- While strong, they do not possess the same level of internal validity as randomized controlled trials.
*Level 3*
- Level 3 evidence typically includes **case-control studies** or **cohort studies**, which are observational designs and carry a higher risk of bias compared to RCTs.
- These studies generally do not involve randomization or intervention assignment by the researchers.
*Level 4*
- Level 4 evidence is usually derived from **case series** or **poor quality cohort and case-control studies**.
- These studies provide descriptive information or investigate associations without strong control for confounding factors.
*Level 5*
- Level 5 evidence is the **lowest level of evidence**, consisting of **expert opinion** or **animal research/bench research**.
- This level lacks human clinical data or systematic investigative rigor needed for higher evidence levels.
Conflicts of interest US Medical PG Question 5: You are a resident on a pediatric service entering orders late at night. Upon arrival the next morning, you note that you had mistakenly ordered that low molecular weight heparin be administered to a 17-year-old patient who does not need anti-coagulation. When you talk to her, she complains about the "shot" she had to get this morning but is otherwise well. How should you handle the situation?
- A. Since there was no lasting harm to the patient, it is not necessary to disclose the error
- B. Tell the patient and her parents about the error (Correct Answer)
- C. You cannot disclose the error as a resident due to hospital policy
- D. Tell the patient, but ask her not to tell her parents
- E. Speak to risk management before deciding whether or not to disclose the error
Conflicts of interest Explanation: ***Tell the patient and her parents about the error***
- Full **disclosure of medical errors** is a fundamental ethical principle, even if no lasting harm occurred, because it promotes trust and transparency.
- As a **minor**, the patient's parents/guardians have the right to be informed about medical errors affecting their child's care and safety.
*Since there was no lasting harm to the patient, it is not necessary to disclose the error*
- This statement is incorrect because the **absence of harm** does not negate the ethical obligation to disclose a medical error; it is crucial for patient trust and learning from mistakes.
- Failing to disclose an error, even if harmless, can erode trust and is considered a breach of **professional integrity and transparency**.
*You cannot disclose the error as a resident due to hospital policy*
- While hospital policies may guide the process of disclosure (e.g., involving attending physicians or risk management), they do not prevent residents from participating in or initiating the disclosure of an error.
- The resident's role involves acknowledging the error and initiating the appropriate steps for disclosure, often in collaboration with their **supervising physician**.
*Tell the patient, but ask her not to tell her parents*
- This is unethical and legally problematic because, as a **minor**, the patient's parents or legal guardians have the right to be informed about significant medical events and errors related to their child's care.
- Asking the patient to withhold information from her parents undermines **parental rights** and creates an inappropriate and potentially harmful dynamic.
*Speak to risk management before deciding whether or not to disclose the error*
- While consulting **risk management** is an important step in the process of disclosing a medical error to ensure compliance and support, it should not be a prerequisite for the decision to disclose.
- The ethical imperative is to disclose the error; risk management primarily guides *how* to best disclose it, not *whether* to disclose it.
Conflicts of interest US Medical PG Question 6: A 28-year-old woman dies shortly after receiving a blood transfusion. Autopsy reveals widespread intravascular hemolysis and acute renal failure. Investigation reveals that she received type A blood, but her medical record indicates she was type O. In a malpractice lawsuit, which of the following elements must be proven?
- A. Duty, breach, causation, and damages (Correct Answer)
- B. Only duty and breach
- C. Only breach and causation
- D. Duty, breach, and damages
Conflicts of interest Explanation: ***Duty, breach, causation, and damages***
- In a medical malpractice lawsuit, all four elements—**duty, breach, causation, and damages**—must be proven for a successful claim.
- The healthcare provider had a **duty** to provide competent care, they **breached** that duty by administering the wrong blood type, this breach **caused** the patient's death and renal failure, and these injuries constitute **damages**.
*Only duty and breach*
- While **duty** and **breach** are necessary components, proving only these two is insufficient for a malpractice claim.
- It must also be demonstrated that the breach directly led to the patient's harm and resulted in legally recognized damages.
*Only breach and causation*
- This option omits the crucial elements of professional **duty** owed to the patient and the resulting **damages**.
- A claim cannot succeed without establishing that a duty existed and that quantifiable harm occurred.
*Duty, breach, and damages*
- This option misses the critical element of **causation**, which links the provider's breach of duty to the patient's injuries.
- Without proving that the breach *caused* the damages, even if a duty was owed and breached, and damages occurred, the claim would fail.
Conflicts of interest US Medical PG Question 7: A 19-year-old woman comes to the physician for a routine examination. She has one sexual partner, with whom she had unprotected sexual intercourse 3 days ago. She does not desire a pregnancy and is interested in a reliable and long-term contraceptive method. She has read in detail about the reliability, adverse-effects, health risks, and effective duration of intrauterine devices (IUD) as a birth control method. She requests the physician to prescribe and place an IUD for her. The physician feels that providing contraception would be a violation of her religious beliefs. Which of the following responses by the physician is most appropriate?
- A. “First, I would like to perform an STD panel since you are sexually active.”
- B. “I need to discuss this with my pastor before I decide whether to insert an IUD, as this is against my religious beliefs.”
- C. “Prescribing any means of contraception is against my religious beliefs, but as a doctor, I am obliged to place the IUD for you.”
- D. “I can understand your need for the IUD, but I cannot place it for you due to my religious beliefs. I would be happy to refer you to a colleague who could do it.” (Correct Answer)
- E. I understand your concerns, but I cannot place the IUD for you due to my religious beliefs. I recommend you use condoms instead.
Conflicts of interest Explanation: ***“I can understand your need for the IUD, but I cannot place it for you due to my religious beliefs. I would be happy to refer you to a colleague who could do it.”***
- Physicians have the right to **refuse to perform a procedure** based on their personal religious or moral beliefs, provided it is **not an emergency** and they do not abandon the patient.
- The physician fulfills their ethical obligation by offering a **referral** to another healthcare provider who can meet the patient's needs, upholding the principle of **patient autonomy** and access to care.
*“First, I would like to perform an STD panel since you are sexually active.”*
- While an **STD panel** is good practice for a sexually active individual, it does not directly address the patient's immediate request for contraception or the physician's religious dilemma.
- Delaying the discussion of contraception for an STD panel, especially in the context of recent unprotected intercourse, might be seen as ignoring the patient's urgent need for **emergency contraception** or a long-term method.
*“I need to discuss this with my pastor before I decide whether to insert an IUD, as this is against my religious beliefs.”*
- Consulting a religious leader about a medical decision is **unprofessional** and violates patient confidentiality and the physician's responsibility to provide care directly.
- This response places the patient's care based on a **third party's opinion** rather than the patient's needs and the physician's professional obligations.
*“Prescribing any means of contraception is against my religious beliefs, but as a doctor, I am obliged to place the IUD for you.”*
- While ethical obligations dictate that physicians should not abandon patients, they are not always obligated to perform procedures that fundamentally conflict with their deeply held **religious or moral beliefs**.
- This statement presents an internal conflict but doesn't offer a practical or ethical resolution that respects both the physician's beliefs and the patient's right to care.
*“I understand your concerns, but I cannot place the IUD for you due to my religious beliefs. I recommend you use condoms instead."*
- The physician correctly states their inability to place the IUD due to religious beliefs but fails to offer an **appropriate referral**, which is a crucial ethical step to ensure continuity of care.
- **Recommending condoms** is not equivalent to the patient's request for a reliable, long-term IUD and falls short of providing comprehensive, patient-centered care.
Conflicts of interest US Medical PG Question 8: A 32-year-old male asks his physician for information regarding a vasectomy. On further questioning, you learn that he and his wife have just had their second child and he asserts that they no longer wish to have additional pregnancies. You ask him if he has discussed a vasectomy with his wife to which he replies, "Well, not yet, but I'm sure she'll agree." What is the next appropriate step prior to scheduling the patient's vasectomy?
- A. Insist that the patient first discuss this procedure with his wife
- B. Telephone the patient's wife to inform her of the plan
- C. Refuse to perform the vasectomy
- D. Explain the risks and benefits of the procedure and request signed consent from the patient and his wife
- E. Explain the risks and benefits of the procedure and request signed consent from the patient (Correct Answer)
Conflicts of interest Explanation: ***Explain the risks and benefits of the procedure and request signed consent from the patient***
- A patient has the **right to make autonomous decisions** about their own medical care, including reproductive choices, regardless of their marital status or spousal approval.
- The physician's role is to ensure the patient is fully informed and provides **voluntary, uncoerced consent** after understanding the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the procedure.
*Insist that the patient first discuss this procedure with his wife*
- This option would be a **violation of patient autonomy** and confidentiality, as a married person has the right to make independent medical decisions.
- Requiring spousal consent for a procedure performed solely on one individual is not ethically or legally mandated and could be considered discriminatory.
*Telephone the patient's wife to inform her of the plan*
- This action would be a **breach of patient confidentiality**, as the patient's medical information, including his intent to have a vasectomy, cannot be shared with a third party, even a spouse, without explicit permission.
- Informing the wife without the husband's consent also undermines the patient's autonomy and right to privacy regarding his healthcare decisions.
*Refuse to perform the vasectomy*
- Refusing to perform the procedure simply because the patient has not discussed it with his wife would be **unethical and inconsistent with medical professionalism**, assuming the patient is competent and fully informed.
- A physician should not deny medically appropriate care based on a patient's marital dynamics or the presumed wishes of a spouse, as long as the patient's consent is valid.
*Explain the risks and benefits of the procedure and request signed consent from the patient and his wife*
- While it is advisable for a patient to discuss major life decisions with their spouse, requiring **spousal consent for a patient's own medical procedure** is not legally or ethically mandated for competent adults.
- Obtaining consent from both individuals is typically reserved for procedures affecting both parties directly or for those involving a surrogate decision-maker, not for an autonomous adult's personal medical choice.
Conflicts of interest US Medical PG Question 9: A 29-year-old man is admitted to the emergency department following a motorcycle accident. The patient is severely injured and requires life support after splenectomy and evacuation of a subdural hematoma. Past medical history is unremarkable. The patient’s family members, including wife, parents, siblings, and grandparents, are informed about the patient’s condition. The patient has no living will and there is no durable power of attorney. The patient must be put in an induced coma for an undetermined period of time. Which of the following is responsible for making medical decisions for the incapacitated patient?
- A. The spouse (Correct Answer)
- B. An older sibling
- C. Physician
- D. Legal guardian
- E. The parents
Conflicts of interest Explanation: ***The spouse***
- In the absence of a **living will** or **durable power of attorney**, the law typically designates the **spouse** as the primary decision-maker for an incapacitated patient.
- This hierarchy is established to ensure decisions are made by the individual most intimately connected and presumed to understand the patient's wishes.
*An older sibling*
- Siblings are generally further down the **hierarchy of surrogate decision-makers** than a spouse or parents.
- They would typically only be considered if higher-priority family members are unavailable or unwilling to make decisions.
*Physician*
- The physician's role is to provide medical care and guidance, not to make medical decisions for an incapacitated patient when family surrogates are available.
- Physicians only make decisions in **emergency situations** when no surrogate is immediately available and treatment is immediately necessary to save the patient's life or prevent serious harm.
*Legal guardian*
- A legal guardian is usually appointed by a **court** when there is no appropriate family member available or when there is a dispute among family members.
- In this scenario, with a spouse and other close family members present, a legal guardian would not be the first choice.
*The parents*
- While parents are close family members, they are typically considered **secondary to the spouse** in the hierarchy of surrogate decision-makers for an adult patient.
- They would usually only be the decision-makers if the patient were unmarried or the spouse were unavailable.
Conflicts of interest US Medical PG Question 10: A 34-year-old man presents to the local clinic with a 2 month history of midsternal chest pain following meals. He has a past medical history of hypertension. The patient takes lisinopril daily. He drinks 4–5 cans of 12 ounce beer daily, and chews 2 tins of smokeless tobacco every day. The vital signs are currently stable. Physical examination shows a patient who is alert and oriented to person, place, and time. Palpation of the epigastric region elicits mild tenderness. Percussion is normoresonant in all 4 quadrants. Murphy’s sign is negative. Electrocardiogram shows sinus rhythm with no acute ST segment or T wave changes. The physician decides to initiate a trial of omeprazole to treat the patient’s gastroesophageal reflux disease. How can the physician most effectively assure that this patient will adhere to the medication regimen?
- A. Instruct the patient to purchase a weekly pill organizer
- B. Have the patient repeat back to the physician the name of the medication, dosage, and frequency (Correct Answer)
- C. Provide the patient with details of the medication on a print-out
- D. Contact the pharmacist because they can explain the details more thoroughly
- E. Tell the patient to write the medication name, dosage, and frequency on their calendar at home
Conflicts of interest Explanation: ***Have the patient repeat back to the physician the name of the medication, dosage, and frequency***
- The **"teach-back" method** is an effective way to confirm patient understanding and improve adherence by having the patient restate information in their own words.
- This method allows the physician to identify and clarify any misunderstandings immediately, ensuring the patient comprehends the **medication regimen**.
*Instruct the patient to purchase a weekly pill organizer*
- While a **pill organizer** can be helpful for medication organization, simply telling the patient to buy one does not guarantee they will understand or consistently use it.
- It does not address the fundamental issue of ensuring the patient fully comprehends the **medication instructions** and its importance.
*Provide the patient with details of the medication on a print-out*
- A print-out provides information, but merely giving a patient a **document** does not confirm they have read, understood, or retained the information.
- Many patients may not read or fully comprehend written materials, making it less effective than active engagement methods like **teach-back**.
*Contact the pharmacist because they can explain the details more thoroughly*
- Pharmacists play a crucial role in medication education, but delegating the primary explanation entirely removes the physician's opportunity to assess the patient's immediate understanding and address concerns directly.
- The **physician-patient interaction** is a key moment for establishing a shared understanding of the treatment plan.
*Tell the patient to write the medication name, dosage, and frequency on their calendar at home*
- This method relies on the patient's ability and willingness to *independently* record and recall information, which may not be sufficient for comprehensive understanding or adherence.
- It does not provide an immediate feedback loop for the physician to assess the patient's comprehension of the **treatment plan**.
More Conflicts of interest US Medical PG questions available in the OnCourse app. Practice MCQs, flashcards, and get detailed explanations.
