Legal and Ethical Aspects of Medicine — MCQs

Legal and Ethical Aspects of Medicine Indian Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs

Question 281: All can be executive magistrate except -

A. Tehsildar
B. Subcollector
C. Collector
D. SSP (Correct Answer)

Explanation: ***SSP*** - An **SSP (Senior Superintendent of Police)** is a police officer responsible for law and order, and is **not an executive magistrate**. - Executive magistrates are primarily part of the **revenue administration** and hold powers under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). *Tehsildar* - A **Tehsildar** is a revenue officer who also serves as an **executive magistrate** within their jurisdiction. - They are empowered to maintain law and order, issue various certificates, and conduct inquiries under the CrPC. *Subcollector* - A **Subcollector** (also known as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or SDM) is a senior revenue officer who functions as an **executive magistrate**. - They hold significant powers related to land revenue, law enforcement, and public order in their sub-division. *Collector* - The **Collector** (also known as District Magistrate or DM) is the highest-ranking executive officer in a district and serves as the chief **executive magistrate**. - They are responsible for overall administration, revenue collection, and maintaining law and order within the district.

Question 282: True about incest is: Karnataka 11

A. Not punishable in India (Correct Answer)
B. Punishable under Sec. 377 IPC
C. Punishable under Sec. 294 IPC
D. Punishable under Sec. 304-A IPC

Explanation: ***Not punishable in India*** - **Incest between consenting adults** is **not explicitly defined as a crime** in the Indian Penal Code, making this the correct answer. - There is **no specific section in the IPC** that criminalizes consensual sexual relations between adult blood relatives. - While incest remains a **social and moral taboo**, it is not prosecuted as a standalone offense when it involves consenting adults. - However, if incest involves **minors**, it is punishable under the **POCSO Act, 2012**, and if it involves **non-consensual acts**, it falls under rape laws (Sections 375-376 IPC). *Punishable under Sec. 377 IPC* - **Section 377 IPC** originally dealt with "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" but was **partially struck down** by the Supreme Court in **Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)**. - After this judgment, Section 377 now only applies to **non-consensual sexual acts** and **bestiality**, not consensual acts between adults. - Historically, this section may have been cited for incest cases, but it is **no longer applicable** for consensual adult relationships, including incest. *Punishable under Sec. 294 IPC* - **Section 294 IPC** deals with **obscene acts and songs in public places** that cause annoyance to others. - This section addresses public obscenity and is **not related to incest**, which is a private familial matter. *Punishable under Sec. 304-A IPC* - **Section 304-A IPC** deals with **causing death by negligence**, which involves rash or negligent acts leading to death. - This section is **completely unrelated** to incest, which concerns sexual relationships between blood relatives.

Question 283: What is the current legal status of adultery in India following the Supreme Court's decision in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)?

A. Adultery remains a criminal offense under Section 497 IPC
B. Adultery is punishable under Section 376 IPC
C. Adultery is covered under Section 498 IPC
D. Adultery is no longer a criminal offense in India (Correct Answer)

Explanation: ***Adultery is no longer a criminal offense in India*** - In **Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)**, the Supreme Court of India decriminalized adultery by striking down **Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)**. - The court ruled that **Section 497** was unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, treating women as property and denying their agency. *Adultery remains a criminal offense under Section 497 IPC* - This statement is incorrect because the Supreme Court **struck down Section 497 IPC** in 2018, thereby decriminalizing adultery. - Therefore, adultery is no longer punishable as a criminal offense under this section. *Adultery is punishable under Section 376 IPC* - **Section 376 IPC** deals with the crime of **rape**, which is fundamentally different from adultery. - Adultery involves consensual sexual intercourse outside of marriage, while rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse. *Adultery is covered under Section 498 IPC* - **Section 498 IPC** pertains to **cruelty by husband or relatives of husband** to a married woman. - This section addresses domestic violence and harassment within marriage, not the act of adultery itself.

Question 284: Between dying declaration and dying deposition, which carries more weight in a court of law?

A. Both are not significant
B. Dying deposition
C. Dying declaration
D. Both carry the same weight (Correct Answer)

Explanation: ***Both carry the same weight*** - Both **dying declaration** and **dying deposition** are admissible under **Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act** as statements made by persons who are dead. - Neither carries inherently more weight than the other; their **evidential value depends on the circumstances**, credibility, and consistency of each statement. - Indian courts have held that a **dying declaration**, if found to be truthful and reliable, can be the **sole basis for conviction** without corroboration, demonstrating its significant weight. - Similarly, a **dying deposition** taken under oath before a magistrate carries weight due to its formal procedure, but this does not make it automatically superior. - The court evaluates each on its own merits based on factors like **mental state of declarant**, **opportunity to observe**, and **internal consistency**. *Dying deposition* - A **dying deposition** is a formal statement taken under **oath before a magistrate** when a person is in danger of dying, with opportunity for cross-examination. - While it has procedural safeguards (oath, judicial supervision), this does not automatically confer greater weight than a dying declaration in Indian law. - Its value depends on the same factors as a dying declaration: credibility, circumstances, and consistency. *Dying declaration* - A **dying declaration** is a statement made by a person concerning the cause of their death or circumstances of the transaction resulting in death. - It is admissible as an exception to the **hearsay rule** under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. - Indian Supreme Court has consistently held that it can form the **sole basis for conviction** if found truthful and voluntary, not requiring corroboration. - The absence of oath does not diminish its value, as it is based on the principle that a person about to die is unlikely to lie. *Both are not significant* - This is incorrect as both **dying declarations** and **dying depositions** are highly significant pieces of evidence in criminal proceedings. - They can be crucial in cases where the victim is the primary or only witness to the crime, especially in homicide cases. - Both are specifically recognized and given evidentiary value under the **Indian Evidence Act**.

Question 285: Death of a patient due to an unintentional act by a doctor, staff or hospital is

A. Diminished liability
B. Therapeutic privilege
C. Vicarious liability
D. Therapeutic misadventure (Correct Answer)

Explanation: ***Therapeutic misadventure*** - This term refers to an **unintentional or unexpected complication or death** that occurs during appropriate medical treatment, despite the absence of negligence. - It acknowledges that medical interventions carry inherent risks and that adverse outcomes can occur even when healthcare providers act reasonably and skillfully. *Diminished liability* - This concept typically arises in **criminal law**, referring to a partial defense that may reduce the degree of criminal responsibility due to mental impairment. - It does not apply to situations involving unintentional harm or death during medical treatment in the absence of negligence. *Therapeutic privilege* - This is a legal doctrine allowing a physician to **withhold information** from a patient if disclosure would likely cause significant harm to the patient. - It is unrelated to unintentional adverse outcomes or death in the context of medical treatment. *Vicarious liability* - This legal doctrine holds one party (e.g., a hospital or employer) responsible for the actions of another (e.g., a doctor or employee), especially when the latter is acting within the scope of their employment. - While a hospital might be vicariously liable for a doctor's negligence, the term itself describes the *type* of liability, not the unintentional adverse event itself.

Question 286: Professional death in medical profession is -

A. Removal of name of doctor from panel of RMP (Correct Answer)
B. Death sentence ordered by judge
C. Death during police firing
D. Death of doctor

Explanation: ***Removal of name of doctor from panel of RMP*** - **Professional death** in the medical context refers to the permanent revocation of a doctor's license to practice. - This typically occurs when a physician's name is removed from the **Register of Medical Practitioners (RMP)**, making it illegal for them to practice medicine. *Death sentence ordered by judge* - This is a legal punishment for severe crimes and does not relate to the **professional standing** or *licensure* of a physician. - A death sentence is a judicial outcome for criminal offenses, distinct from *professional misconduct*. *Death during police firing* - This describes a cause of actual physical death and is unrelated to a doctor's **professional status** or ability to practice. - While tragic, it has no bearing on a physician's *professional licensure* or *ethical standing*. *Death of doctor* - This refers to the **biological death** of an individual, which naturally ends their professional career. - However, "professional death" specifically denotes the **loss of professional credentials** while still being alive, due to disciplinary action.

Question 287: The presumption of legitimacy of a child is defined under:

A. 112 IEA (Correct Answer)
B. 113 IEA
C. 113 Cr P C
D. 112 Cr P C

Explanation: ***112 IEA*** - Section **112 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA)** specifically deals with the **presumption of legitimacy** of a child. - It states that a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage, or within **280 days** after its dissolution (where the mother remained unmarried), shall be **conclusive proof of legitimacy**. - This 280-day period corresponds to the maximum duration of human pregnancy. *113 IEA* - Section 113 of the IEA deals with **proof of cession of territory** and is unrelated to the legitimacy of children. *113 Cr P C* - Section 113 of the **Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)** relates to **power to impound document** and has no bearing on legitimacy. *112 Cr P C* - Section 112 of the **CrPC** relates to **information as to commission of offences** and is a criminal procedure matter, not relevant to the presumption of a child's legitimacy.

Question 288: Which of the following is the primary legal test regarding insanity?

A. Current Rule
B. McNaughten Rule (Correct Answer)
C. Durham Rule
D. All of the options

Explanation: ***McNaughten Rule*** - The **McNaughten Rule** (or M'Naghten Rule) is considered the **primary legal test** and historically significant standard for criminal insanity in English common law jurisdictions. - It establishes that a defendant is not criminally responsible if, at the time of committing the act, they were suffering from a **defect of reason**, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act they were doing; or, if they did know it, that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. *Current Rule* - "Current Rule" is a **vague term** and not a specific legal standard for insanity. - While various jurisdictions use different modern rules (e.g., ALI Model Penal Code test), "Current Rule" does not refer to a universally agreed-upon primary legal test. *Durham Rule* - The **Durham Rule** (or "product test") was adopted by some US jurisdictions, notably New Hampshire and for a time in the D.C. Circuit, but has largely been **abandoned** due to its broadness. - It established that an accused is not criminally responsible if their unlawful act was the **product of mental disease or defect**, which was considered too expansive and difficult to apply. *All of the options* - This option is incorrect because while the McNaughten Rule is primary, the **Durham Rule** is distinct and largely superseded, and "Current Rule" is not a specific, recognized legal term for insanity testing.

Question 289: All the following rules are related to legal responsibility of an insane person, EXCEPT:

A. Durham's rule
B. Currens rule
C. Mc Naughten's rule
D. Rule of nine (Correct Answer)

Explanation: ***Rule of nine*** - The **rule of nines** is a method used to estimate the **total body surface area (TBSA)** affected by **burns** in adults, essential for burn patient management. - It assigns percentages to different body parts (e.g., each arm 9%, head 9%, trunk 18%) for quick assessment of burn severity. - This is **completely unrelated** to legal responsibility for insanity and relates to trauma/burn assessment. *Durham's rule* - The **Durham rule** (also known as the "product test") states that an accused is not criminally responsible if their unlawful act was the product of a **mental disease or defect**. - This rule focuses on the causal connection between mental illness and the criminal act. - Used in some U.S. jurisdictions as a test for legal insanity. *Currens rule* - The **Currens rule** (also known as the "irresistible impulse test") from *United States v. Currens* (1961) states that a defendant is not criminally responsible if they lacked substantial capacity to **conform their conduct** to the requirements of the law due to mental disease. - This focuses on **volitional capacity** - whether the person could control their actions, even if they knew right from wrong. - This is a recognized legal standard for insanity defense in criminal law. *M'Naghten's rule* - The **M'Naghten rules** established that a defendant can be acquitted on grounds of insanity if they were either unaware of what they were doing or unaware that what they were doing was wrong. - This focuses on **cognitive capacity** - the ability to understand the nature and wrongfulness of the act. - This is the foundational test for legal insanity in many common law jurisdictions, including India.

Question 290: A doctor is not held guilty of negligence if

A. He has not obtained informed consent from patient
B. He has exercised reasonable care and skill (Correct Answer)
C. Others suffer disease from his patient
D. He fails to give proper instructions

Explanation: ***He has exercised reasonable care and skill*** - A doctor is not held guilty of **negligence** if they have acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art (**Bolam test**). - This implies employing the **degree of care, diligence, and skill** that a reasonably competent practitioner would use under similar circumstances. *He has not obtained informed consent from patient* - Failure to obtain **informed consent** can lead to liability for **battery** (unlawful touching) or negligence, especially if the patient can prove they would not have undergone the procedure had they been properly informed of the risks. - Ethical and legal standards mandate that patients provide **voluntary, informed consent** before medical interventions. *Others suffer disease from his patient* - A doctor's primary responsibility is to their patient; however, there are situations where a **duty to warn** third parties exists, especially in cases of foreseeable harm from a communicable disease or dangerous psychiatric patient. - Failure to warn when such a **duty is established** could lead to negligence claims if specific harm to identifiable third parties occurs. *He fails to give proper instructions* - Providing **clear and adequate post-operative or post-treatment instructions** is a fundamental part of a doctor's duty of care. - Failure to give proper instructions can result in **patient harm** and can be grounds for a negligence claim if it leads to complications or a poor outcome.

Practice by Chapter

Medical Jurisprudence Fundamentals

Practice Questions

Medical Ethics Principles

Practice Questions

Consent in Medical Practice

Practice Questions

Confidentiality and Privacy

Practice Questions

Medical Negligence

Practice Questions

Professional Misconduct

Practice Questions

Rights and Duties of Medical Practitioners

Practice Questions

Consumer Protection Laws

Practice Questions

Medical Documentation

Practice Questions

Expert Witness Testimony

Practice Questions

Ethical Dilemmas in Medicine

Practice Questions

International Medical Ethics Codes

Practice Questions

Want unlimited practice?

Get full access to all questions, explanations, and performance tracking.

Start For Free