Ethics & Law — MCQs
On this page
A 16-year-old girl attends the emergency department requesting termination of pregnancy. She is 8 weeks pregnant and is Gillick competent. She does not want her parents informed. Her boyfriend, who is 17 years old and the father, is with her and supports her decision. What is the most appropriate course of action regarding confidentiality and consent?
According to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which of the following statements about Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs) is correct?
A 54-year-old man with metastatic bowel cancer is receiving palliative chemotherapy. He develops neutropenic sepsis and is admitted to the intensive care unit requiring ventilatory support. After 10 days, his condition deteriorates with multi-organ failure. The ICU consultant believes further treatment is futile and wishes to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. The patient lacks capacity. His wife insists that 'everything possible' must be done. What is the most appropriate course of action?
A 19-year-old man with profound learning disabilities and epilepsy requires dental extraction under general anaesthetic. He lacks capacity to consent. His mother, who is his main carer, refuses consent as she is worried about the anaesthetic risks. However, the dentist believes the extraction is necessary to prevent serious infection. There is no Lasting Power of Attorney in place. What is the correct legal basis for proceeding?
A 75-year-old woman with severe Alzheimer's disease (MMSE 9/30) requires insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube for recurrent aspiration pneumonia. She is unable to understand the purpose of the procedure despite repeated explanations. Her daughter has Lasting Power of Attorney for health and welfare and consents to the procedure. Her son disagrees, stating his mother would never have wanted this. What is the most appropriate course of action?
A 69-year-old man with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is admitted with an infective exacerbation. Despite maximal treatment including non-invasive ventilation, he is deteriorating. He has capacity and requests that he be 'allowed to die peacefully' and refuses intubation. His son, who is a doctor, demands that 'everything be done' and threatens legal action if his father is not intubated. How should this situation be managed?
According to UK law, which of the following statements about Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions is correct?
A 43-year-old woman with motor neurone disease made an advance decision to refuse treatment (ADRT) two years ago refusing 'intubation and mechanical ventilation'. She is now admitted with aspiration pneumonia and type 2 respiratory failure. She is drowsy (GCS 13) but able to communicate. She indicates she wants 'help with breathing'. What is the most appropriate action?
Which of the following situations would legally justify breaching patient confidentiality without consent?
A 31-year-old woman with severe learning disability (IQ 42) living in residential care requires a hysterectomy for menorrhagia causing severe anaemia unresponsive to medical management. She lacks capacity to consent to surgery. She has no family and no LPA. Her care home staff support the surgery. What is the legally required process before surgery can proceed?
Ethics & Law UK Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Question 121: A 16-year-old girl attends the emergency department requesting termination of pregnancy. She is 8 weeks pregnant and is Gillick competent. She does not want her parents informed. Her boyfriend, who is 17 years old and the father, is with her and supports her decision. What is the most appropriate course of action regarding confidentiality and consent?
- A. Proceed with referral for termination maintaining confidentiality as she is Gillick competent (Correct Answer)
- B. Inform her parents as she is under 18 and termination is a serious procedure
- C. Require consent from both the girl and her boyfriend as he is the father
- D. Inform social services due to safeguarding concerns about underage sexual activity
- E. Refuse to proceed without parental involvement as termination requires adult consent
Explanation: ***Proceed with referral for termination maintaining confidentiality as she is Gillick competent*** - A person under 16 who is **Gillick competent** has the legal right to consent to medical treatment, including **termination of pregnancy**, without parental involvement. - Under the **Fraser Guidelines**, confidentiality must be respected if the patient understands the advice, cannot be persuaded to tell parents, and their health would suffer without the procedure. *Inform her parents as she is under 18 and termination is a serious procedure* - Respecting a **compliant minor's** request for confidentiality is a legal requirement; being under 18 does not automatically grant parents a right to medical information. - **Parental responsibility** does not override the autonomous decision of a **Gillick competent** young person in the UK legal framework. *Require consent from both the girl and her boyfriend as he is the father* - Legally, the **biological father** has no right to consent to or veto a termination of pregnancy; the decision rests solely with the pregnant individual. - **Consent** is an individual right, and requiring a third party's permission would be a breach of the patient's **autonomy** and confidentiality. *Inform social services due to safeguarding concerns about underage sexual activity* - Sexual activity between two adolescents of similar age (16 and 17) is generally not a **safeguarding trigger** unless there is evidence of **coercion, exploitation, or abuse**. - Routine reporting of consensual sexual activity in this age group would violate **patient-doctor trust** and confidentiality without specific risk factors. *Refuse to proceed without parental involvement as termination requires adult consent* - The **Family Law Reform Act** and Gillick principles ensure that competent minors can access healthcare without an "adult" if they meet the criteria for **informed consent**. - Refusing care solely due to lack of **parental consent** for a competent minor is unethical and potentially a breach of the patient's **human rights**.
Question 122: According to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which of the following statements about Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs) is correct?
- A. An IMCA must be instructed for all patients who lack capacity regardless of the decision being made
- B. An IMCA must be instructed when serious medical treatment decisions are being made for unbefriended patients who lack capacity (Correct Answer)
- C. An IMCA can only be instructed by the Court of Protection
- D. An IMCA has legal authority to make decisions on behalf of patients who lack capacity
- E. An IMCA is only required for decisions about mental health treatment
Explanation: ***An IMCA must be instructed when serious medical treatment decisions are being made for unbefriended patients who lack capacity***- Under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**, an **Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA)** is mandatory when a person lacks capacity and has no family or friends (**unbefriended**) to support them during specific major decisions.- This requirement applies specifically to decisions regarding **serious medical treatment** or a change in **long-term accommodation** (more than 28 days in a hospital or 8 weeks in a care home).*An IMCA must be instructed for all patients who lack capacity regardless of the decision being made*- Instruction is not universal; it is only legally required for **specific high-stakes decisions** involving unbefriended individuals.- If a patient has an appropriate **family member or friend** to represent their interests, an IMCA is generally not required for routine care.*An IMCA can only be instructed by the Court of Protection*- An IMCA is typically instructed by the **responsible body**, such as the **NHS Trust** or **local authority**, rather than the court.- The **medical consultant** or social worker identifying the lack of capacity and absence of support is usually the one to initiate the referral.*An IMCA has legal authority to make decisions on behalf of patients who lack capacity*- An IMCA does **not have the power to make decisions**; their role is to represent the patient's **wishes, feelings, and beliefs** and to challenge the decision-maker if necessary.- The final decision-maker remains the **clinician** (for medical treatment) or the **local authority** (for accommodation) based on the patient's **best interests**.*An IMCA is only required for decisions about mental health treatment*- Their remit extends primarily to **physical health treatments** and placement decisions under the Mental Capacity Act, not just psychiatric care.- Patients under the **Mental Health Act** may have access to an **Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA)**, which is a different statutory role.
Question 123: A 54-year-old man with metastatic bowel cancer is receiving palliative chemotherapy. He develops neutropenic sepsis and is admitted to the intensive care unit requiring ventilatory support. After 10 days, his condition deteriorates with multi-organ failure. The ICU consultant believes further treatment is futile and wishes to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. The patient lacks capacity. His wife insists that 'everything possible' must be done. What is the most appropriate course of action?
- A. Continue all treatment as the wife is the next of kin and her wishes must be followed
- B. Withdraw treatment immediately as it is clinically futile regardless of family wishes
- C. Convene a best interests meeting including the family and multidisciplinary team to discuss treatment limitations (Correct Answer)
- D. Seek a second opinion from another ICU consultant before making any changes
- E. Apply to the Court of Protection for permission to withdraw treatment
Explanation: ***Convene a best interests meeting including the family and multidisciplinary team to discuss treatment limitations***- For a patient lacking **capacity**, decisions must be made in their **best interests** under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**, which necessitates consulting those close to the patient, like the wife.- A **best interests meeting** allows for a collaborative discussion to explore the patient's likely wishes/values and to explain the concept of **clinical futility**, fostering agreement before considering legal avenues.*Continue all treatment as the wife is the next of kin and her wishes must be followed*- The wife, as **next of kin**, does not have the legal authority to demand medically **futile treatment** if the medical team determines it is not in the patient's best interest.- Doctors are not ethically or legally obligated to provide treatments that are deemed **clinically inappropriate** or offer no benefit, even if requested by family members.*Withdraw treatment immediately as it is clinically futile regardless of family wishes*- Unilateral withdrawal of treatment without proper consultation with the family and consideration of the patient's **best interests** is ethically and legally problematic under the **Mental Capacity Act**.- Such an approach can lead to significant distress for the family, potential **legal challenges**, and a breakdown in the crucial patient-family-doctor relationship.*Seek a second opinion from another ICU consultant before making any changes*- While a **second clinical opinion** can be valuable for confirming the clinical assessment of futility, it does not address the core issue of the family's disagreement and the need to determine the patient's **best interests** collaboratively.- This step might support the clinical decision, but it does not resolve the ethical and legal requirement to engage with the family regarding the patient's lack of **capacity** and their wishes.*Apply to the Court of Protection for permission to withdraw treatment*- Referring a case to the **Court of Protection** should be considered a last resort when all attempts at resolution through **best interests meetings** and mediation have failed.- It is premature to involve the courts before exhausting less invasive methods of communication and shared decision-making with the patient's family and the **multidisciplinary team**.
Question 124: A 19-year-old man with profound learning disabilities and epilepsy requires dental extraction under general anaesthetic. He lacks capacity to consent. His mother, who is his main carer, refuses consent as she is worried about the anaesthetic risks. However, the dentist believes the extraction is necessary to prevent serious infection. There is no Lasting Power of Attorney in place. What is the correct legal basis for proceeding?
- A. Proceed under the Mental Health Act 1983 as the treatment is necessary
- B. Proceed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in the patient's best interests after best interests consultation (Correct Answer)
- C. Seek consent from the Court of Protection before proceeding
- D. Accept the mother's refusal as she has parental responsibility
- E. Wait until the patient turns 21 when different legal provisions apply
Explanation: ***Proceed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in the patient's best interests after best interests consultation*** - For adults over 18 who lack capacity and have no **Lasting Power of Attorney**, clinicians must act in the patient's **best interests** as per the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**. - While the mother’s views must be considered as a primary carer, she does not have the legal right to veto treatment once the patient is an **adult**. *Proceed under the Mental Health Act 1983 as the treatment is necessary* - The **Mental Health Act** governs the treatment of **mental disorders** and cannot be used for unrelated physical health procedures like dental extractions. - This act is typically applied when a patient requires detention for psychiatric treatment, which is not the case here. *Seek consent from the Court of Protection before proceeding* - Referral to the **Court of Protection** is generally reserved for serious ethical dilemmas, such as **organ donation** or end-of-life decisions, or where there is an irreconcilable dispute. - Routine surgical procedures like dental extractions are managed locally through a **best interests meeting** rather than by court order. *Accept the mother's refusal as she has parental responsibility* - **Parental responsibility** legally terminates when a person reaches the age of **18**, meaning the mother can no longer give or withhold consent for her son. - No individual (except a court-appointed deputy or proxy) has the legal authority to **refuse life-sustaining or necessary treatment** on behalf of another adult. *Wait until the patient turns 21 when different legal provisions apply* - The legal threshold for adulthood and medical decision-making in the UK is **18 years old**; no significant change in legal status occurs at 21 for this context. - Delaying treatment unnecessarily could lead to **serious infection** or harm, failing the clinician's duty of care and the **best interests** principle.
Question 125: A 75-year-old woman with severe Alzheimer's disease (MMSE 9/30) requires insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube for recurrent aspiration pneumonia. She is unable to understand the purpose of the procedure despite repeated explanations. Her daughter has Lasting Power of Attorney for health and welfare and consents to the procedure. Her son disagrees, stating his mother would never have wanted this. What is the most appropriate course of action?
- A. Proceed with PEG insertion based on the daughter's consent as the Lasting Power of Attorney (Correct Answer)
- B. Seek a second opinion from another consultant before proceeding
- C. Apply to the Court of Protection for a decision
- D. Proceed with PEG insertion as it is in the patient's best interests
- E. Decline to insert the PEG as there is family disagreement
Explanation: ***Proceed with PEG insertion based on the daughter's consent as the Lasting Power of Attorney***- Under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**, a registered **Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)** for health and welfare has the legal authority to make decisions for a patient who lacks capacity.- The daughter's legal status as an LPA means her consent carries the same weight as the patient's would, overriding the objections of other family members who do not hold **legal authority**.*Seek a second opinion from another consultant before proceeding*- While a second opinion can be helpful in complex cases, it does not resolve the legal priority of the **LPA holder's** decision-making rights.- The legal framework for consent is already satisfied by the **LPA's approval**, making an additional clinical opinion unnecessary for the legal process.*Apply to the Court of Protection for a decision*- Referral to the **Court of Protection** is typically reserved for cases where there is no LPA, or where the LPA is acting against the **patient's best interests**.- A disagreement between family members where one holds **legal Power of Attorney** does not automatically require court intervention.*Proceed with PEG insertion as it is in the patient's best interests*- While the procedure may be in the **patient’s best interests**, the medical team must first seek consent from the person with **legal authority** (the LPA) rather than deciding unilaterally.- Terminology focusing solely on 'best interests' ignores the specific **legal hierarchy** created by the presence of a Health and Welfare LPA.*Decline to insert the PEG as there is family disagreement*- Medical treatment should not be withheld simply because of a disagreement if a **legally valid consent** has been obtained from the authorized representative.- Following the son's objection over the **LPA's legal consent** would improperly disregard the patient's prior legal arrangements for her care.
Question 126: A 69-year-old man with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is admitted with an infective exacerbation. Despite maximal treatment including non-invasive ventilation, he is deteriorating. He has capacity and requests that he be 'allowed to die peacefully' and refuses intubation. His son, who is a doctor, demands that 'everything be done' and threatens legal action if his father is not intubated. How should this situation be managed?
- A. Follow the son's wishes as he has medical knowledge and may have valid legal grounds
- B. Intubate to avoid litigation until a court decision can be obtained
- C. Respect the patient's capacitous decision and clearly document his wishes, explaining to the son that the patient's decision takes precedence (Correct Answer)
- D. Convene an ethics committee meeting to decide between the patient and his son's wishes
- E. Sedate the patient to relieve distress and revisit the decision when the son is calmer
Explanation: ***Respect the patient's capacitous decision and clearly document his wishes, explaining to the son that the patient's decision takes precedence*** - An adult with **mental capacity** has the absolute legal and ethical right to refuse any medical treatment, including life-sustaining measures like **intubation**. - Respecting **autonomy** means the patient's wishes override those of family members, regardless of their professional status or threats of legal action. *Follow the son's wishes as he has medical knowledge and may have valid legal grounds* - Family members, including those with medical knowledge, do not have the **legal authority** to override the decisions of a patient who possesses capacity. - Acting against the patient's expressed refusal would violate the principle of **autonomy** and could be considered medical battery. *Intubate to avoid litigation until a court decision can be obtained* - Intubating a capacitous patient against their express refusal is a violation of their **human rights** and is legally indefensible. - Courts consistently uphold the right of a competent individual to **refuse treatment**, even if that refusal results in death. *Convene an ethics committee meeting to decide between the patient and his son's wishes* - An **ethics committee** serves an advisory role and cannot override the legally binding refusal of a patient with **decision-making capacity**. - Initiating this process unnecessarily delays the implementation of the patient's clear and lawful wishes for **palliative care**. *Sedate the patient to relieve distress and revisit the decision when the son is calmer* - Sedating a patient to avoid a difficult conversation or to ignore their treatment refusal is **unethical** and a breach of professional standards. - The priority is to provide **supportive care** that aligns with the patient's goals, rather than managing the family's emotions at the expense of the patient's rights.
Question 127: According to UK law, which of the following statements about Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions is correct?
- A. DNACPR decisions can only be made by consultant-level doctors
- B. A valid ADRT refusing CPR must be followed even if the patient has changed their mind verbally
- C. DNACPR decisions must always be discussed with the patient if they have capacity, unless discussion would cause physical or psychological harm (Correct Answer)
- D. Family members can insist on CPR being attempted even if clinicians consider it futile
- E. DNACPR forms are legally binding across all healthcare settings including community settings
Explanation: ***DNACPR decisions must always be discussed with the patient if they have capacity, unless discussion would cause physical or psychological harm*** - Following the **Tracey judgment**, there is a legal presumption in favor of **patient involvement** and consultation regarding DNACPR decisions. - Doctors must document the discussion or clearly state why such a conversation would cause **physical or psychological harm**; a simple clinical futility judgment does not exempt the duty to inform. *DNACPR decisions can only be made by consultant-level doctors* - Decisions about CPR can be made by **any appropriately trained doctor** or healthcare professional as determined by local policy, though the **most senior clinician** ultimately holds responsibility. - Nurse practitioners and other non-consultant grades often complete these forms in **integrated clinical settings** like primary care or stroke units. *A valid ADRT refusing CPR must be followed even if the patient has changed their mind verbally* - A **capacitous verbal statement** that is clear and specific overrides a previously written **Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT)**. - Advance decisions are only triggered when a patient **lacks capacity**; if they have capacity, their current wishes take precedence. *Family members can insist on CPR being attempted even if clinicians consider it futile* - While families must be **consulted** to understand the patient’s wishes, they cannot legally **demand or insist** on medical treatments that are deemed clinically non-beneficial. - Clinicians are not required to provide **futile treatment**, although disagreements should be managed through second opinions or mediation. *DNACPR forms are legally binding across all healthcare settings including community settings* - DNACPR forms serve as **clinical guidance** rather than legally binding orders; they communicate a clinical decision but do not have the same legal status as an **ADRT**. - While systems like **ReSPECT** aim for portability, the weight given to the form can vary, and it remains a tool for **clinical communication** across settings.
Question 128: A 43-year-old woman with motor neurone disease made an advance decision to refuse treatment (ADRT) two years ago refusing 'intubation and mechanical ventilation'. She is now admitted with aspiration pneumonia and type 2 respiratory failure. She is drowsy (GCS 13) but able to communicate. She indicates she wants 'help with breathing'. What is the most appropriate action?
- A. Follow the ADRT and do not provide any respiratory support
- B. Provide non-invasive ventilation as this is not covered by the ADRT
- C. Discuss with the patient her current wishes, as these take precedence over the ADRT (Correct Answer)
- D. Intubate and ventilate as the ADRT is no longer valid after two years
- E. Convene a best interests meeting to decide whether to follow the ADRT
Explanation: ***Discuss with the patient her current wishes, as these take precedence over the ADRT*** - A **contemporaneous decision** made by a patient with **mental capacity** always overrides any previously made Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT). - Although the patient is drowsy, she is still able to communicate; physicians must first assess her **current capacity** to see if she wishes to revoke or change her prior decision. *Follow the ADRT and do not provide any respiratory support* - This ignores the principle that an ADRT is only applicable if the patient **lacks capacity** to make the decision at the time the treatment is required. - Automatically applying the document without attempting to communicate with a conscious, communicating patient violates **autonomy** and medical ethics. *Provide non-invasive ventilation as this is not covered by the ADRT* - While it is true that **Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV)** is distinct from intubation, the priority is to establish the patient's current preferences first. - Acting on a technicality of the ADRT's wording before clarifying the patient's **actual wishes** is clinically and ethically inappropriate when she is capable of expressing them. *Intubate and ventilate as the ADRT is no longer valid after two years* - There is no **fixed expiry date** for an ADRT under the Mental Capacity Act; it remains valid unless revoked or if a significant change in circumstances suggests it no longer applies. - While regular reviews are recommended, the passage of time alone does not invalidate it; however, her **current request for help** takes legal precedence. *Convene a best interests meeting to decide whether to follow the ADRT* - A **Best Interests** meeting is only required when a patient lacks capacity and there is doubt about the validity of an ADRT or no ADRT exists. - Since the patient is currently able to communicate and potentially possesses capacity, a **formal meeting** is premature and unnecessary until her capacity is formally assessed.
Question 129: Which of the following situations would legally justify breaching patient confidentiality without consent?
- A. A patient's spouse calls requesting test results because they are 'worried about them'
- B. A patient with well-controlled epilepsy who drives refuses to inform DVLA despite advice (Correct Answer)
- C. A patient discloses they are having an affair and you know their spouse who is also your patient
- D. A patient's employer calls requesting a fitness-to-work report
- E. A police officer requests information about a patient who witnessed a crime
Explanation: ***A patient with well-controlled epilepsy who drives refuses to inform DVLA despite advice*** - Doctors have a duty to breach confidentiality in the **public interest** if a patient’s medical condition (like epilepsy) poses a **serious risk of harm** to others and the patient refuses to stop driving or notify the **DVLA**. - Before disclosure, the doctor should attempt to persuade the patient to inform the authorities and must warn them if they intend to disclose the information themselves.*A patient's spouse calls requesting test results because they are 'worried about them'* - **Confidentiality** extends to family members; being a spouse does not grant an automatic right to access sensitive medical data without explicit **patient consent**. - Disclosure in this context would be a breach of the **duty of care** and GMC professional standards.*A patient discloses they are having an affair and you know their spouse who is also your patient* - Information regarding an affair is a private matter and does not meet the threshold of **serious harm** or **public interest** required to justify a breach. - Maintaining **trust** in the doctor-patient relationship is paramount, and using sensitive information from one patient to benefit another is unethical.*A patient's employer calls requesting a fitness-to-work report* - Medical reports for employers require **written consent** from the patient, and patients usually have the right to view the report before it is sent. - Unless there is a specific legal mandate, disclosing health information to an **employer** without consent is a violation of privacy laws and ethical guidelines.*A police officer requests information about a patient who witnessed a crime* - Being a **witness** to a crime does not generally justify a breach of confidentiality; doctors should only disclose information to the police if there is a **serious crime** (e.g., terrorism, murder) or a **court order**. - For most minor incidents or witness statements, the patient must be given the opportunity to provide **voluntary consent** for their information to be shared.
Question 130: A 31-year-old woman with severe learning disability (IQ 42) living in residential care requires a hysterectomy for menorrhagia causing severe anaemia unresponsive to medical management. She lacks capacity to consent to surgery. She has no family and no LPA. Her care home staff support the surgery. What is the legally required process before surgery can proceed?
- A. Proceed with surgery based on care home staff support as they know her best
- B. Arrange an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) and make best interests decision with MDT (Correct Answer)
- C. Apply to Court of Protection as all serious decisions for those lacking capacity require court approval
- D. Proceed in her best interests without delay as the anaemia is severe
- E. Seek consent from her nearest relative identified through residential care records
Explanation: ***Arrange an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) and make best interests decision with MDT*** - Under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**, an **IMCA** must be appointed when a person lacking capacity has no family or friends to consult and requires **serious medical treatment**. - A **hysterectomy** is a significant surgical intervention, and the IMCA’s role is to ensure the patient's rights and interests are represented during the **best interests** decision-making process. *Proceed with surgery based on care home staff support as they know her best* - While the views of care home staff are relevant to the **best interests** meeting, they do not have the legal authority to provide consent for surgery. - The legal requirement specifically mandates an **IMCA** involvement when there is no family/LPA, regardless of the level of support from professional caregivers. *Apply to Court of Protection as all serious decisions for those lacking capacity require court approval* - The **Court of Protection** is generally reserved for cases involving **dispute**, ethical complexity, or specific sensitive treatments like non-therapeutic sterilization. - Medical treatments like a hysterectomy for menorrhagia can usually be authorized through clinical **best interests** decisions once legal requirements (like IMCA involvement) are met. *Proceed in her best interests without delay as the anaemia is severe* - Immediate action without formal procedure is only legally protected under **Section 5 of the MCA** in an **emergency** to prevent life-threatening harm. - In this scenario, while the condition is severe, it is a chronic issue previously managed medically, meaning there is time to complete the legal requirement of the **IMCA referral**. *Seek consent from her nearest relative identified through residential care records* - The concept of a **'Nearest Relative'** is specific to the **Mental Health Act** and does not grant legal power to consent to medical treatment under the Mental Capacity Act. - Unless an individual holds a **Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)** or is a court-appointed deputy, no relative or friend can provide legal consent for an adult lacking capacity.
Practice by Chapter
Want unlimited practice?
Get full access to all questions, explanations, and performance tracking.
Start For Free