Ethics & Law — MCQs
On this page
According to UK law, which of the following accurately describes when a doctor may breach patient confidentiality without consent?
A 48-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer with brain metastases has fluctuating consciousness. Yesterday she had capacity and requested no further active treatment including antibiotics. Today she has developed reduced consciousness (GCS 13) and clinical features of urinary sepsis. Her husband requests that antibiotics be given. She has no written advance decision. What should guide the decision about antibiotic treatment?
A 27-year-old woman with a history of recurrent self-harm presents to the emergency department following an overdose of 40 paracetamol tablets four hours ago. She refuses N-acetylcysteine treatment and wishes to leave. Mental health assessment determines she has capacity to refuse treatment and is not detainable under the Mental Health Act. What is the most appropriate course of action?
An 83-year-old man with advanced Parkinson's disease and cognitive impairment is admitted with aspiration pneumonia. He is deteriorating despite antibiotics. The medical team believes he is entering the terminal phase. His wife states he has never discussed his wishes. He has no advance decision or LPA. The team recommends implementing a treatment escalation plan limiting further intervention to ward-based care only. What legal framework should guide this decision?
A 15-year-old boy diagnosed with osteosarcoma requires limb-sparing surgery versus amputation. He demonstrates mature understanding of both options and chooses amputation, contrary to his parents' wishes for limb-sparing surgery. Both options have similar oncological outcomes. The surgical team believes the boy has sufficient understanding to consent (Gillick competent). What is the correct legal approach?
A 59-year-old man with end-stage motor neurone disease is receiving palliative care at home. He has capacity and requests that his medications be adjusted to 'end things quickly' as he can no longer tolerate his suffering. He specifically asks for a lethal dose of medication. What is the legally correct response?
A 32-year-old woman with severe anxiety disorder attends pre-assessment for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. She appears to understand the procedure and its risks when explained, but states she feels unable to make a decision about surgery because her anxiety makes her feel 'completely overwhelmed and unable to weigh things up properly.' Her anxiety symptoms are currently untreated. How should her capacity to consent be assessed?
According to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which of the following must be established for an advance decision to refuse life-sustaining treatment to be legally valid and applicable?
A 46-year-old man with metastatic melanoma has been receiving palliative chemotherapy. Recent scans show disease progression. He has capacity and tells you he wants to continue chemotherapy despite being informed that further treatment is unlikely to provide benefit and may cause significant side effects. His oncologist believes continuing treatment would be futile and potentially harmful. What is the correct legal position regarding continuing chemotherapy?
A 71-year-old woman with advanced dementia (MMSE 10/30) is admitted with a fractured neck of femur. She is unable to understand the risks and benefits of surgery. Her daughter, who holds Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare, states that her mother would never have wanted surgery and insists on conservative management only. The orthopaedic team believes surgery is in the patient's best interests to reduce pain and facilitate nursing care. What is the most appropriate management approach?
Ethics & Law UK Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Question 101: According to UK law, which of the following accurately describes when a doctor may breach patient confidentiality without consent?
- A. When requested by the patient's spouse or civil partner who is concerned about their health
- B. When the police request information about any patient involved in a criminal investigation
- C. When there is a serious risk of harm to others that outweighs the duty of confidentiality (Correct Answer)
- D. When the patient's employer requests a medical report for occupational health purposes
- E. When a medical indemnity insurer requests records to assess a potential claim
Explanation: ***When there is a serious risk of harm to others that outweighs the duty of confidentiality*** - Disclosure without consent is legally and ethically justified in the **public interest** to prevent serious harm, such as in cases of **child protection**, serious crime, or risk of **communicable diseases**. - The decision must be proportionate, implying that the **risk to others** is substantial enough to supersede the patient's individual right to privacy. *When requested by the patient's spouse or civil partner who is concerned about their health* - Information must remain confidential even from **immediate family members** unless the patient has provided explicit **informed consent**. - Concerns from a spouse do not provide a legal basis for disclosure unless the patient lacks **mental capacity** and it is in their **best interests**. *When the police request information about any patient involved in a criminal investigation* - Police requests do not automatically override confidentiality; disclosures usually require a **court order**, patient consent, or specific **statutory requirements** (e.g., Terrorism Act). - Breach without consent for police is generally only permitted to prevent or detect a **serious crime** on a case-by-case public interest basis. *When the patient's employer requests a medical report for occupational health purposes* - Under the **Access to Medical Reports Act**, employers must obtain the patient's **written consent** before requesting a report from their doctor. - Doctors are bound to maintain confidentiality and cannot release health records to an employer solely for **administrative or occupational** reasons. *When a medical indemnity insurer requests records to assess a potential claim* - Insurers typically require **explicit patient consent** to access medical records for assessing claims or determining coverage. - Disclosure without consent to an indemnity provider is not permitted unless there is a **legal compulsion** or it is required for defending a legal claim via **due process**.
Question 102: A 48-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer with brain metastases has fluctuating consciousness. Yesterday she had capacity and requested no further active treatment including antibiotics. Today she has developed reduced consciousness (GCS 13) and clinical features of urinary sepsis. Her husband requests that antibiotics be given. She has no written advance decision. What should guide the decision about antibiotic treatment?
- A. Respect her verbal advance decision from yesterday and withhold antibiotics
- B. Follow the husband's wishes as she now lacks capacity
- C. Treat with antibiotics as verbal advance decisions are not legally valid
- D. Assess whether her expressed wish yesterday constitutes an applicable advance decision and make a best interests decision (Correct Answer)
- E. Withhold antibiotics as she has metastatic cancer and is clearly dying
Explanation: ***Assess whether her expressed wish yesterday constitutes an applicable advance decision and make a best interests decision*** - When a patient lacks capacity, the first step is to assess if any previously expressed wishes constitute a **valid and applicable Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT)**, particularly regarding **life-sustaining treatment** like antibiotics for sepsis. - If it is not a legally binding ADRT, decisions must be made in her **best interests** under the Mental Capacity Act, considering her past verbal statements, values, and the views of her husband. *Respect her verbal advance decision from yesterday and withhold antibiotics* - While verbal advance decisions can be valid for non-life-sustaining treatments, a refusal of **life-sustaining treatment** must be **written, signed, and witnessed** to be legally binding. - Automatically withholding antibiotics without a full assessment of its legal validity and applicability, or without a comprehensive **best interests assessment**, would be premature and potentially unlawful given the life-threatening nature of sepsis. *Follow the husband's wishes as she now lacks capacity* - In the absence of a **Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)** for health and welfare, a spouse does not have the legal authority to consent to or refuse treatment on behalf of an adult lacking capacity. - The husband's views are crucial for determining the patient's **best interests** by informing what she would have wanted, but he is not the ultimate decision-maker. *Treat with antibiotics as verbal advance decisions are not legally valid* - This statement is an oversimplification; **verbal advance decisions** can be legally valid for non-life-sustaining treatments, but for refusal of **life-sustaining treatment**, they typically require a written and witnessed format. - Even if not legally binding as a formal ADRT, the patient's clear verbal wishes yesterday are still a very significant factor that must be carefully considered in any **best interests decision**. *Withhold antibiotics as she has metastatic cancer and is clearly dying* - While the patient has **metastatic cancer**, her diagnosis alone does not justify withholding treatment for an acute, treatable condition like sepsis without a clear understanding of her wishes or a determination of futility. - Decisions to withhold treatment should be based on a thorough **clinical assessment**, the patient's **expressed wishes**, and a **best interests determination**, not on assumptions about prognosis or quality of life.
Question 103: A 27-year-old woman with a history of recurrent self-harm presents to the emergency department following an overdose of 40 paracetamol tablets four hours ago. She refuses N-acetylcysteine treatment and wishes to leave. Mental health assessment determines she has capacity to refuse treatment and is not detainable under the Mental Health Act. What is the most appropriate course of action?
- A. Allow her to leave as she has capacity to refuse treatment
- B. Detain her under Section 5(2) of the Mental Health Act for psychiatric treatment
- C. Treat her without consent under common law as this is a life-threatening emergency (Correct Answer)
- D. Apply the Mental Capacity Act as the overdose demonstrates impaired decision-making capacity
- E. Seek urgent Court of Protection authorisation to administer treatment
Explanation: ***Treat her without consent under common law as this is a life-threatening emergency*** - Under the **principle of necessity** (Common Law), clinicians can provide life-saving treatment in a time-critical emergency, even if a patient with capacity refuses, if the delay poses an immediate threat to life. - A **paracetamol overdose** of 40 tablets is potentially fatal without **N-acetylcysteine**, and the benefit of preventing **fulminant hepatic failure** outweighs the temporary infringement of autonomy in this acute crisis. *Allow her to leave as she has capacity to refuse treatment* - While **autonomy** is a core ethical principle, the **duty of care** to preserve life in an immediate, reversible, life-threatening emergency can take precedence in the clinical setting. - Allowing a patient to leave after a lethal ingestion without intervention could lead to **negligence** or a failure in the medical practitioner's duty to provide emergency care. *Detain her under Section 5(2) of the Mental Health Act for psychiatric treatment* - **Section 5(2)** is only used to detain established **inpatients** in a hospital for up to 72 hours for a mental health assessment; it cannot be used in the ED for physical treatment. - The scenario states she is **not detainable** under the Mental Health Act, and this act focuses on mental health treatment rather than medical stabilization of an overdose. *Apply the Mental Capacity Act as the overdose demonstrates impaired decision-making capacity* - The **Mental Capacity Act (MCA)** cannot be applied here because the assessment explicitly determined she **has capacity** to refuse treatment. - Self-harm or a history of mental health issues does not automatically equate to a **lack of capacity**; capacity is time- and decision-specific. *Seek urgent Court of Protection authorisation to administer treatment* - Seeking a **Court of Protection** order is inappropriate in this case due to the **time-critical window** for administering N-acetylcysteine to prevent liver damage. - Legal processes are far too slow for **life-threatening emergencies**, where immediate clinical action is required to avoid a fatal outcome.
Question 104: An 83-year-old man with advanced Parkinson's disease and cognitive impairment is admitted with aspiration pneumonia. He is deteriorating despite antibiotics. The medical team believes he is entering the terminal phase. His wife states he has never discussed his wishes. He has no advance decision or LPA. The team recommends implementing a treatment escalation plan limiting further intervention to ward-based care only. What legal framework should guide this decision?
- A. The decision can be made by the consultant alone as the senior responsible clinician
- B. The wife's consent must be obtained as next of kin before implementing the plan
- C. A best interests decision should be made considering all relevant factors including the wife's views (Correct Answer)
- D. An Independent Mental Capacity Advocate must be appointed before any limitations are implemented
- E. Application to the Court of Protection is required for end-of-life treatment limitation decisions
Explanation: ***A best interests decision should be made considering all relevant factors including the wife's views***- Under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**, when a patient lacks capacity and has no **LPA** or **Advance Decision**, clinicians must act in the patient's **best interests**.- This process involves consulting family members (like the wife) to understand the patient’s **past wishes, beliefs, and values** to guide the medical team's choice.*The decision can be made by the consultant alone as the senior responsible clinician*- While the consultant is the **ultimate decision-maker** for medical treatment, the law requires a **collaborative process** involving the multidisciplinary team and family.- Decisions must follow the **Best Interests checklist** rather than being a unilateral clinical choice without consultation.*The wife's consent must be obtained as next of kin before implementing the plan*- In UK law, there is no legal concept of **'next of kin' consent** for adults; the wife cannot 'veto' or 'authorise' medical treatment.- Her role is to act as a **consultant** to help the team determine what the patient would have wanted, not to provide formal legal consent.*An Independent Mental Capacity Advocate must be appointed before any limitations are implemented*- An **IMCA** is only legally required for serious medical decisions when the patient has **no family or friends** available to be consulted.- Since the patient has a wife who is involved in his care, she fulfills the role of the person to be consulted under the **Mental Capacity Act**.*Application to the Court of Protection is required for end-of-life treatment limitation decisions*- Routine **treatment escalation plans (TEP)** and ceilings of care do not typically require the **Court of Protection** if there is consensus among the team and family.- Court involvement is generally reserved for cases where there is a **disagreement** between the medical team and the family that cannot be resolved.
Question 105: A 15-year-old boy diagnosed with osteosarcoma requires limb-sparing surgery versus amputation. He demonstrates mature understanding of both options and chooses amputation, contrary to his parents' wishes for limb-sparing surgery. Both options have similar oncological outcomes. The surgical team believes the boy has sufficient understanding to consent (Gillick competent). What is the correct legal approach?
- A. Proceed with amputation as the boy is Gillick competent and can provide valid consent
- B. Proceed with limb-sparing surgery as parental consent overrides the minor's wishes
- C. Seek court authorisation as there is disagreement between the child and parents (Correct Answer)
- D. Wait until the boy turns 16 when he can legally consent independently
- E. Obtain consent from both the boy and parents regardless of who has priority
Explanation: ***Seek court authorisation as there is disagreement between the child and parents*** - When a **Gillick-competent** minor's decision for a major, irreversible procedure (like **amputation**) is in direct conflict with their parents' wishes, and both options have similar **oncological outcomes**, court authorisation is the correct legal approach. - This ensures that the decision is made in the child's **best interests** by an impartial authority, navigating the complex interplay of a competent minor's autonomy and parental responsibilities. *Proceed with amputation as the boy is Gillick competent and can provide valid consent* - While the boy is indeed **Gillick competent** and his consent is legally valid, proceeding with such a significant and permanent procedure against strong **parental opposition** poses substantial legal and ethical risks for the surgical team. - In cases involving profound disagreement over irreversible medical decisions, solely relying on the minor's consent without addressing parental concerns through a legal channel can lead to future disputes. *Proceed with limb-sparing surgery as parental consent overrides the minor's wishes* - This option incorrectly assumes that **parental consent** automatically overrides a **Gillick-competent** minor's informed decision, especially when the minor is consenting to a medically viable option. - The principle of **Gillick competence** acknowledges a child's evolving autonomy; thus, their capacity to make medical decisions should be respected, not simply dismissed by parental preference without judicial review. *Wait until the boy turns 16 when he can legally consent independently* - **Osteosarcoma** is an aggressive malignancy, and delaying treatment for potentially several months until the boy reaches 16 would be medically unsafe due to the high risk of **disease progression** and metastasis. - The current assessment of **Gillick competence** means the boy is already deemed capable of making medical decisions, rendering an age-based delay medically inappropriate and potentially harmful. *Obtain consent from both the boy and parents regardless of who has priority* - While achieving consensus is always the ideal, this option fails to address the core issue of an existing **disagreement** and provides no pathway for resolution when consensus cannot be reached. - In situations of conflict between a **Gillick-competent** minor and parents, simply stating to obtain both consents does not resolve the **legal impasse** or guide the clinical team on how to proceed.
Question 106: A 59-year-old man with end-stage motor neurone disease is receiving palliative care at home. He has capacity and requests that his medications be adjusted to 'end things quickly' as he can no longer tolerate his suffering. He specifically asks for a lethal dose of medication. What is the legally correct response?
- A. Provide the medication as requested given his capacity and unbearable suffering
- B. Explain that this would constitute illegal euthanasia but discuss palliative care options and his concerns (Correct Answer)
- C. Agree to provide sedation that may hasten death as a foreseeable side effect
- D. Refer him to a psychiatrist to assess for depression affecting his capacity
- E. Advise him to travel to a jurisdiction where assisted dying is legal
Explanation: ***Explain that this would constitute illegal euthanasia but discuss palliative care options and his concerns***- In most jurisdictions, including the UK, **euthanasia** and **assisted suicide** are illegal, regardless of the patient's capacity or degree of suffering.- The legally and ethically correct response is to decline the request for a lethal dose, but crucially, to explore the patient's **reasons for suffering**, address their fears, and optimize **palliative care** for symptom control.*Provide the medication as requested given his capacity and unbearable suffering*- Actively providing a **lethal dose** with the primary intention of ending a patient's life is considered **euthanasia** or **assisted suicide**, which is unlawful and may lead to charges of murder or manslaughter.- A patient's **capacity** and autonomy do not permit a physician to engage in illegal acts.*Agree to provide sedation that may hasten death as a foreseeable side effect*- The **Principle of Double Effect** allows for administering medication to relieve suffering, even if it foreseeably hastens death, but the *primary intention* must be symptom relief, not to end life.- Providing a lethal dose specifically asked to
Question 107: A 32-year-old woman with severe anxiety disorder attends pre-assessment for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. She appears to understand the procedure and its risks when explained, but states she feels unable to make a decision about surgery because her anxiety makes her feel 'completely overwhelmed and unable to weigh things up properly.' Her anxiety symptoms are currently untreated. How should her capacity to consent be assessed?
- A. She lacks capacity as she has stated she cannot make the decision
- B. She has capacity as she understands the information provided to her
- C. She lacks capacity due to her diagnosed mental health condition
- D. Further assessment is needed to determine if the anxiety impairs her ability to use and weigh the information (Correct Answer)
- E. Capacity should be assessed by a psychiatrist before proceeding
Explanation: ***Further assessment is needed to determine if the anxiety impairs her ability to use and weigh the information*** - Under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**, a person is only deemed to lack capacity if an impairment of the mind or brain prevents them from **understanding, retaining, communicating, or weighing** information. - While she understands the procedure, her claim of being unable to **"weigh things up"** requires a targeted assessment to see if this functional deficit is a direct result of her **untreated anxiety disorder**. *She lacks capacity as she has stated she cannot make the decision* - A patient stating they find a decision difficult or feeling unable to choose is not definitive proof of a **lack of capacity**; it may indicate a need for more **support or time**. - Capacity must be objectively assessed against the four functional criteria rather than simply accepting a patient's **subjective statement** of inability. *She has capacity as she understands the information provided to her* - Understanding is only one of the four functional requirements; capacity also requires the ability to **retain, use/weigh, and communicate** the decision. - Even if a patient understands the facts, they may still lack capacity if a mental condition prevents them from **processing risks and benefits** to reach a conclusion. *She lacks capacity due to her diagnosed mental health condition* - The **Mental Capacity Act** explicitly states that capacity cannot be determined merely by a patient’s **age, appearance, or medical diagnosis**. - Having a **mental health condition** like anxiety does not automatically imply incapacity; the impairment must be shown to prevent the patient from making the **specific decision** at hand. *Capacity should be assessed by a psychiatrist before proceeding* - In most jurisdictions, any doctor or healthcare professional seeking consent is responsible for performing the **initial capacity assessment**. - Referral to a **psychiatrist** is not mandatory unless the case is particularly complex or there is significant dispute regarding the **diagnostic or functional tests** of capacity.
Question 108: According to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which of the following must be established for an advance decision to refuse life-sustaining treatment to be legally valid and applicable?
- A. It must be verbal, witnessed by two healthcare professionals, and state that it applies to life-sustaining treatment
- B. It must be in writing, signed by the person and witnessed, and explicitly state that it applies even if life is at risk (Correct Answer)
- C. It must be registered with the patient's GP and reviewed annually by a psychiatrist
- D. It must be countersigned by a consultant and lodged with the Court of Protection
- E. It must be notarised and accompanied by an independent mental capacity assessment
Explanation: ***It must be in writing, signed by the person and witnessed, and explicitly state that it applies even if life is at risk***- Under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**, an Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT) involving **life-sustaining treatment** must be **written**, **signed** by the person, and **witnessed**.- Crucially, it must include a specific **written statement** confirming that the decision is to apply even if **life is at risk** to be legally binding and applicable.*It must be verbal, witnessed by two healthcare professionals, and state that it applies to life-sustaining treatment*- While ADRTs for non-life-sustaining treatments can be **verbal**, those regarding **life-sustaining treatment** strictly require a **written record** to be legally valid.- There is no legal requirement for the witnesses to be **healthcare professionals**; any adult can act as a witness.*It must be registered with the patient's GP and reviewed annually by a psychiatrist*- There is no statutory requirement for an ADRT to be registered with a **GP** or held in a central registry, although sharing it with the GP is recommended for clinical awareness.- **Annual psychiatric reviews** are not required; an ADRT remains valid indefinitely unless the person regains capacity and explicitly withdraws or alters it.*It must be countersigned by a consultant and lodged with the Court of Protection*- An ADRT is a personal decision made by a person with **capacity** and does not require the approval or signature of a **medical consultant**.- The **Court of Protection** only becomes involved if there is a dispute regarding the validity or applicability of the decision, not for its standard creation or lodging.*It must be notarised and accompanied by an independent mental capacity assessment*- **Notarisation** is not a requirement under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for an advance decision to be considered legally valid.- While the individual must have **mental capacity** at the time of making the decision, a formal **independent mental capacity assessment** document is not a mandatory attachment for the ADRT's validity.
Question 109: A 46-year-old man with metastatic melanoma has been receiving palliative chemotherapy. Recent scans show disease progression. He has capacity and tells you he wants to continue chemotherapy despite being informed that further treatment is unlikely to provide benefit and may cause significant side effects. His oncologist believes continuing treatment would be futile and potentially harmful. What is the correct legal position regarding continuing chemotherapy?
- A. The patient has an absolute right to demand any treatment he wishes
- B. The oncologist must provide the treatment as the patient has capacity to consent
- C. The oncologist can refuse to provide treatment they believe is not clinically indicated (Correct Answer)
- D. A second oncologist's opinion is legally required before refusing treatment
- E. The hospital trust management must make the final decision about treatment
Explanation: ***The oncologist can refuse to provide treatment they believe is not clinically indicated*** - Doctors are not legally or ethically obliged to provide treatment that they deem to be **clinically non-indicated**, **futile**, or **harmful** to the patient. - While patients have a right to **autonomy** to refuse treatment, this does not grant them an absolute right to demand specific medical interventions that fall outside the **standard of care**. *The patient has an absolute right to demand any treatment he wishes* - Patient autonomy is a **negative right** (the right to refuse) rather than a **positive right** to demand any therapy they desire. - Medical professionals must balance autonomy with the principles of **beneficence** and **non-maleficence**, avoiding treatments that cause unnecessary suffering without benefit. *The oncologist must provide the treatment as the patient has capacity to consent* - Capacity to consent allows a patient to accept a proposed treatment, but it does not compel a physician to offer a treatment they consider **clinically inappropriate**. - Consent is only valid for treatments that are medically offered; a doctor cannot be forced to act against their **professional judgment** and the **Bolam principle**. *A second oncologist's opinion is legally required before refusing treatment* - While offering a **second opinion** is considered good clinical practice and improves patient communication, it is not a **legal requirement** for refusing treatment. - The primary oncologist can make the decision based on **clinical evidence** of futility, though they should manage the process sensitively and offer to facilitate a second opinion if the patient requests it. *The hospital trust management must make the final decision about treatment* - Clinical decisions regarding the **efficacy and appropriateness** of chemotherapy are the responsibility of the treating physician and the **multidisciplinary team**, not administrative management. - Hospital management or the courts are typically only involved in complex cases regarding **best interests** for patients lacking capacity or when there is a significant legal dispute over the **standard of care**.
Question 110: A 71-year-old woman with advanced dementia (MMSE 10/30) is admitted with a fractured neck of femur. She is unable to understand the risks and benefits of surgery. Her daughter, who holds Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare, states that her mother would never have wanted surgery and insists on conservative management only. The orthopaedic team believes surgery is in the patient's best interests to reduce pain and facilitate nursing care. What is the most appropriate management approach?
- A. Proceed with surgery as the medical team has determined it is in the patient's best interests
- B. Follow the daughter's wishes as she holds Lasting Power of Attorney
- C. Seek a second opinion from another orthopaedic consultant
- D. Apply to the Court of Protection for a decision
- E. Hold a best interests meeting involving the multidisciplinary team and the daughter (Correct Answer)
Explanation: ***Hold a best interests meeting involving the multidisciplinary team and the daughter*** - When there is a **disagreement** between the clinical team and a **Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)** regarding a patient's **best interests**, the first step is to facilitate a formal meeting to reach consensus. - The meeting allows all parties to weigh the **patient's previously expressed wishes** against clinical outcomes and ensures the attorney is discharging their duty to act in the patient's best interests.*Proceed with surgery as the medical team has determined it is in the patient's best interests* - Doctors cannot unilaterally override a valid **LPA for Health and Welfare** when the patient lacks capacity; the attorney’s status gives them **legal authority** to make healthcare decisions. - Proceeding without consensus or legal resolution in a non-emergency could lead to potential **legal liability** or professional misconduct.*Follow the daughter's wishes as she holds Lasting Power of Attorney* - Although the daughter has authority, an attorney must make decisions based on the **patient's best interests**, not their own personal preference. - If the medical team believes the attorney's refusal of life-improving treatment is **not in the patient's best interests**, they have a duty to challenge and clarify the decision-making process.*Seek a second opinion from another orthopaedic consultant* - A **second clinical opinion** may clarify the benefits of surgery but does not resolve the **legal and ethical conflict** regarding the attorney's refusal. - The core issue is the **dispute over consent** and best interests, which is a structural decision-making problem rather than a purely clinical one.*Apply to the Court of Protection for a decision* - Application to the **Court of Protection** is a last resort and should only be pursued if a **best interests meeting** fails to resolve the dispute. - This route is unnecessary until all formal attempts to reach **consensus** and mediate with the family have been exhausted.
Practice by Chapter
Want unlimited practice?
Get full access to all questions, explanations, and performance tracking.
Start For Free