Ethics & Law — MCQs
On this page
A 77-year-old man with metastatic oesophageal cancer has a valid advance decision to refuse treatment (ADRT) that specifically refuses 'artificial ventilation or life support machines'. He is admitted with community-acquired pneumonia causing respiratory failure. The medical team consider he might recover from the pneumonia with non-invasive ventilation (NIV). What is the correct legal interpretation?
A 52-year-old man with end-stage liver disease secondary to hepatitis C is admitted confused and jaundiced. He requires urgent paracentesis for tense ascites causing respiratory compromise. He is agitated and pulling at his lines. Capacity assessment confirms he lacks capacity to consent to the procedure. His ex-wife arrives and states she is his attorney under a Lasting Power of Attorney. What should you do before proceeding with the paracentesis?
A 16-year-old girl attends the emergency department requesting emergency hormonal contraception after unprotected intercourse 48 hours ago. She demonstrates clear understanding of the consultation and asks that her parents not be informed. What is the correct legal approach regarding confidentiality?
An 88-year-old woman with advanced dementia (MMSE 5/30) and no advance decision is dying from aspiration pneumonia. She is distressed, making grunting sounds and appears to be in pain. Her daughter insists 'my mother would never want morphine' and refuses to allow any opioid analgesia. The patient lacks capacity. What is the most appropriate action?
A 14-year-old boy with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukaemia requires urgent chemotherapy. His parents consent but he refuses, saying he is 'scared of the side effects' and wants to 'try natural remedies first'. Assessment suggests he understands the diagnosis but underestimates the urgency. What is the most appropriate legal basis for proceeding with treatment?
A 58-year-old woman with metastatic gastric cancer is deteriorating. She has fluctuating confusion but during a lucid period with documented capacity, she tells you she does not want to be resuscitated. Her husband, who is her Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare, disagrees and insists that resuscitation must be attempted. What is the legally correct approach?
According to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which of the following correctly describes when a person is considered unable to make a decision?
A 71-year-old man with capacity develops infective endocarditis requiring 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. During discussion, he reveals he does not want any blood tests during his admission because he is 'fed up with needles'. Blood tests are essential to monitor antibiotic levels and renal function. What is the legally correct approach?
A 23-year-old woman with severe anorexia nervosa (BMI 11.5 kg/m²) is admitted with life-threatening complications including hypoglycaemia, bradycardia (38 bpm), and hypotension. She refuses all treatment including intravenous fluids and nasogastric feeding, stating she wants to die. Mental Capacity Act assessment suggests she lacks capacity specifically regarding treatment decisions. What is the most appropriate legal framework for treatment?
A 65-year-old man with end-stage idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is admitted with worsening dyspnoea despite maximal medical therapy. His oxygen saturations are 82% on 15L non-rebreather mask. The respiratory team discuss with him that his condition is terminal and suggest initiating palliative care. He has capacity and requests that 'everything possible' be done. What is the most appropriate next step?
Ethics & Law UK Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Question 131: A 77-year-old man with metastatic oesophageal cancer has a valid advance decision to refuse treatment (ADRT) that specifically refuses 'artificial ventilation or life support machines'. He is admitted with community-acquired pneumonia causing respiratory failure. The medical team consider he might recover from the pneumonia with non-invasive ventilation (NIV). What is the correct legal interpretation?
- A. The ADRT applies and NIV must not be given
- B. The ADRT is invalid as it was made before he developed pneumonia
- C. The ADRT can be overridden as NIV is not invasive ventilation
- D. Seek legal advice to clarify whether NIV constitutes 'artificial ventilation' in this ADRT (Correct Answer)
- E. Treat with NIV in his best interests as the pneumonia is potentially reversible
Explanation: ***Seek legal advice to clarify whether NIV constitutes 'artificial ventilation' in this ADRT*** - When the wording of an **advance decision to refuse treatment (ADRT)** is ambiguous regarding a specific intervention like **non-invasive ventilation (NIV)**, clinicians must seek senior and legal clarification. - An ADRT must be both **valid and applicable** to the specific circumstances; if it is unclear whether 'artificial ventilation' includes NIV, treatment should not be withheld or given without resolving the ambiguity. *The ADRT applies and NIV must not be given* - This assumes the ADRT is **applicable** to NIV, but the term 'artificial ventilation' is often interpreted by patients as **invasive mechanical ventilation**. - Withholding potentially life-saving treatment based on an **ambiguous document** without clarification could lead to a breach of duty of care. *The ADRT is invalid as it was made before he developed pneumonia* - An ADRT is specifically designed to be made in advance of losing **mental capacity** and remains valid even if the specific pathology (pneumonia) was not foreseen. - It only becomes invalid if there are **reasonable grounds** to believe circumstances have changed in a way that the patient did not anticipate and would have affected their decision. *The ADRT can be overridden as NIV is not invasive ventilation* - Making a unilateral assumption that 'artificial ventilation' only refers to **invasive ventilation** ignores the potential legal weight of the patient's stated refusal. - Overriding a potentially applicable ADRT without legal guidance could result in **legal liability** for battery or a breach of the Mental Capacity Act. *Treat with NIV in his best interests as the pneumonia is potentially reversible* - If a **valid and applicable ADRT** exists, it legally overrides the 'best interests' principle, regardless of the reversibility of the medical condition. - Clinicians can only provide treatment in **best interests** if they have a genuine doubt about the existence, validity, or applicability of the ADRT while awaiting a legal ruling.
Question 132: A 52-year-old man with end-stage liver disease secondary to hepatitis C is admitted confused and jaundiced. He requires urgent paracentesis for tense ascites causing respiratory compromise. He is agitated and pulling at his lines. Capacity assessment confirms he lacks capacity to consent to the procedure. His ex-wife arrives and states she is his attorney under a Lasting Power of Attorney. What should you do before proceeding with the paracentesis?
- A. Proceed with the procedure immediately under common law doctrine of necessity
- B. Proceed with the procedure in his best interests after checking the LPA is registered and covers health and welfare decisions (Correct Answer)
- C. Delay the procedure until his capacity improves so he can consent himself
- D. Contact the Office of the Public Guardian to verify the LPA before proceeding
- E. Obtain verbal consent from his ex-wife and proceed immediately
Explanation: ***Proceed with the procedure in his best interests after checking the LPA is registered and covers health and welfare decisions*** - A **Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)** for **health and welfare** must be **registered** with the Office of the Public Guardian to be legally valid and grant decision-making authority. - Since the patient lacks capacity and the procedure is urgent (respiratory compromise), verifying the LPA allows the attorney to make a **best interests** decision without unnecessary delay. *Proceed with the procedure immediately under common law doctrine of necessity* - The **doctrine of necessity** is for emergencies where no other legal authority exists; however, here, a potential **LPA for health and welfare** has been identified. - Before resorting to necessity, it is crucial to first establish if a valid **LPA** is in place, as this provides a clearer legal framework for decisions. *Delay the procedure until his capacity improves so he can consent himself* - The patient's **tense ascites** is causing **respiratory compromise**, making the paracentesis an urgent, life-saving procedure that cannot be delayed. - Given his end-stage liver disease and confusion, improvement in capacity is unlikely in the short term, and waiting would put him at significant risk. *Contact the Office of the Public Guardian to verify the LPA before proceeding* - While LPA registration is essential, contacting the **Office of the Public Guardian** directly for verification is time-consuming and often not necessary in an emergency. - Typically, the **original document** or a **certified copy** should be available, allowing for immediate verification of registration and scope on site. *Obtain verbal consent from his ex-wife and proceed immediately* - **Verbal consent** from a family member is insufficient when the patient lacks capacity and an **LPA** is presented; the LPA needs to be physically verified. - The ex-wife's statement alone does not confirm the LPA's validity, registration, or that it covers **health and welfare** decisions.
Question 133: A 16-year-old girl attends the emergency department requesting emergency hormonal contraception after unprotected intercourse 48 hours ago. She demonstrates clear understanding of the consultation and asks that her parents not be informed. What is the correct legal approach regarding confidentiality?
- A. Inform her parents as she is under 18 and they have a right to know
- B. Provide the contraception but document that you have informed her parents
- C. Refuse to provide contraception unless she agrees to parental involvement
- D. Provide confidential care if you are satisfied she has capacity to consent and it is in her best interests (Correct Answer)
- E. Provide the contraception but inform parents using Gillick competence provisions
Explanation: ***Provide confidential care if you are satisfied she has capacity to consent and it is in her best interests***- In the UK, young people aged 16 and 17 are presumed to have **capacity to consent** to medical treatment under the **Family Law Reform Act 1969**.- This includes a right to **confidentiality**; if the patient is competent and there are no **safeguarding concerns**, healthcare professionals must respect their request not to inform parents.*Inform her parents as she is under 18 and they have a right to know*- Patients aged 16 and older have the same rights to **medical confidentiality** as adults, provided they are competent to make the decision.- Parental rights do not override a competent minor's right to **privacy** regarding sexual health and contraception.*Provide the contraception but document that you have informed her parents*- Actively informing parents against a competent 16-year-old's wishes would be a **breach of confidentiality** and a violation of professional guidance.- **Fraser guidelines** and **GMC guidance** emphasize that doctors should encourage parental involvement but must respect the patient's refusal if they are competent.*Refuse to provide contraception unless she agrees to parental involvement*- Access to **emergency contraception** is time-sensitive and refusing care based on parental involvement would be **unethical** and legally incorrect.- Healthcare providers have a duty of care to act in the patient’s **best interests**, which includes preventing an unwanted pregnancy in a mature minor.*Provide the contraception but inform parents using Gillick competence provisions*- **Gillick competence** (or **Fraser guidelines** for contraception) actually supports the provision of treatment **without** parental knowledge if the specific criteria are met.- Invoking these legal provisions is exactly why you would **not** inform the parents, rather than a justification for doing so.
Question 134: An 88-year-old woman with advanced dementia (MMSE 5/30) and no advance decision is dying from aspiration pneumonia. She is distressed, making grunting sounds and appears to be in pain. Her daughter insists 'my mother would never want morphine' and refuses to allow any opioid analgesia. The patient lacks capacity. What is the most appropriate action?
- A. Respect the daughter's wishes as next of kin and avoid opioids
- B. Administer morphine in the patient's best interests after explaining to the daughter that you have a duty of care (Correct Answer)
- C. Apply for urgent Court of Protection order to authorise morphine administration
- D. Use only non-pharmacological comfort measures to avoid conflict
- E. Sedate the patient with benzodiazepines instead of opioids
Explanation: ***Administer morphine in the patient's best interests after explaining to the daughter that you have a duty of care*** - In the absence of an **Advance Decision or Lasting Power of Attorney**, clinicians must act in the patient's **best interests** to alleviate suffering when capacity is lost. - While the daughter's views on the patient's previous wishes are important, they do not grant her the legal authority to override **duty of care** regarding necessary symptom control. *Respect the daughter's wishes as next of kin and avoid opioids* - **Next of kin** status does not provide legal authority to refuse life-sustaining or comfort-oriented medical treatments in the UK. - Refusing indicated analgesia for a patient in visible distress would violate the clinician's **non-maleficence** obligations. *Apply for urgent Court of Protection order to authorise morphine administration* - Recourse to the **Court of Protection** is typically reserved for complex, long-term disputes or serious ethical dilemmas, not for acute **symptom management** at the end of life. - The delay required for a court application would result in continued patient **distress and pain**, which is clinically and ethically unacceptable. *Use only non-pharmacological comfort measures to avoid conflict* - Non-pharmacological measures are insufficient for the clinically significant pain and **respiratory distress** (grunting) associated with aspiration pneumonia. - Prioritizing **conflict avoidance** over the patient's physical comfort and clinical needs is a breach of professional medical standards. *Sedate the patient with benzodiazepines instead of opioids* - **Benzodiazepines** provide sedation but lack **analgesic properties**, meaning they would not address the underlying pain causing the grunting. - Substituting ineffective medication to bypass family disagreement constitutes **substandard care** and fails to address the specific symptoms of the patient.
Question 135: A 14-year-old boy with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukaemia requires urgent chemotherapy. His parents consent but he refuses, saying he is 'scared of the side effects' and wants to 'try natural remedies first'. Assessment suggests he understands the diagnosis but underestimates the urgency. What is the most appropriate legal basis for proceeding with treatment?
- A. Proceed based on parental consent alone, as children under 16 cannot refuse treatment
- B. Treat under Mental Capacity Act Section 5 as he lacks capacity due to age
- C. Apply for a court order under the Children Act as he is not Gillick competent to refuse (Correct Answer)
- D. Respect his refusal as the principle of autonomy applies to all ages
- E. Wait until he turns 16 when parental consent alone will suffice
Explanation: ***Apply for a court order under the Children Act as he is not Gillick competent to refuse***- The patient underestimates the **urgency** of his condition, suggesting he lacks the maturity and understanding required to be considered **Gillick competent**.- While parents can often consent on behalf of a minor, in cases of **life-saving treatment** where the minor actively refuses, a **court order** provides the most robust legal protection and ensures the child's **best interests** are prioritized.*Proceed based on parental consent alone, as children under 16 cannot refuse treatment*- While **parental responsibility** allows parents to consent to treatment, it is legally and ethically complex to forcibly treat a child against their will based solely on parental signatures.- In high-stakes situations involving **acute leukaemia**, relying on parental consent alone without **court authorization** can leave clinicians vulnerable to legal challenges regarding the child's **human rights**.*Treat under Mental Capacity Act Section 5 as he lacks capacity due to age*- The **Mental Capacity Act (2005)** generally applies to individuals aged **16 and over**; it is not the primary legal framework for a 14-year-old.- Capacity in children under 16 is assessed via **Gillick competence**, not the criteria set out in the MCA.*Respect his refusal as the principle of autonomy applies to all ages*- Although **autonomy** is a core ethical principle, it is not absolute for minors, especially when a refusal leads to **significant harm** or death.- The legal principle of **parens patriae** allows the state and courts to override a minor's refusal to ensure their **welfare** and survival.*Wait until he turns 16 when parental consent alone will suffice*- Delaying treatment for **acute lymphoblastic leukaemia** is clinically negligent as it is an **oncological emergency** that requires rapid intervention.- At age 16, a young person is presumed to have capacity under the **MCA**, making this option both medically dangerous and legally inaccurate.
Question 136: A 58-year-old woman with metastatic gastric cancer is deteriorating. She has fluctuating confusion but during a lucid period with documented capacity, she tells you she does not want to be resuscitated. Her husband, who is her Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare, disagrees and insists that resuscitation must be attempted. What is the legally correct approach?
- A. Follow the husband's wishes as he is the legal decision-maker with LPA
- B. Respect the patient's wishes expressed when she had capacity, as this takes precedence (Correct Answer)
- C. Convene a best interests meeting to determine what should be done
- D. Defer decision until she regains capacity to confirm her wishes
- E. Attempt resuscitation as the LPA provides legal protection for following the attorney's decision
Explanation: ***Respect the patient's wishes expressed when she had capacity, as this takes precedence***- A contemporaneous decision made by a patient with **documented capacity** takes legal precedence over the wishes of anyone else, including a **Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)**.- Under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**, an LPA's authority only comes into effect when the patient **lacks capacity** to make that specific decision, and they must still act in the patient's **best interests**.*Follow the husband's wishes as he is the legal decision-maker with LPA*- An LPA cannot override a **capacitous decision** made by the patient; their role is to step in only when the patient is unable to decide for themselves.- The husband's insistence on resuscitation contradicts the patient’s own **autonomous choice**, which remains the primary legal and ethical consideration.*Convene a best interests meeting to determine what should be done*- **Best interests meetings** are utilized when a patient lacks capacity and there is no clear **Advance Decision** or consensus on care.- Because the patient clearly expressed her refusal of **CPR** while she had capacity, her decision is effectively an **Advance Refusal** that must be respected without further deliberation.*Defer decision until she regains capacity to confirm her wishes*- Deferring a decision regarding **DNACPR** in a deteriorating patient is clinically unsafe and ignores the valid refusal already provided during a **lucid interval**.- Legal and ethical guidelines require clinicians to respect **competent refusals** of treatment immediately to avoid battery or non-consensual intervention.*Attempt resuscitation as the LPA provides legal protection for following the attorney's decision*- Attempting resuscitation against a capacitous patient's refusal is a violation of **bodily autonomy** and may lead to legal action for **trespass to the person**.- Legal protection is granted to clinicians who follow a patient's **valid refusal**, not to those who follow an LPA's instruction to ignore such a refusal.
Question 137: According to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which of the following correctly describes when a person is considered unable to make a decision?
- A. When they have a diagnosed mental disorder that affects their thinking
- B. When they make a decision that healthcare professionals consider unwise
- C. When they cannot understand, retain, use or weigh relevant information, or communicate their decision (Correct Answer)
- D. When family members disagree with the person's decision and request capacity assessment
- E. When they have previously made poor decisions about their healthcare
Explanation: ***When they cannot understand, retain, use or weigh relevant information, or communicate their decision*** - This describes the **functional test** of capacity under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**, defining exactly what it means to be unable to make a decision. - A person is lacks capacity if they fail any one of these four requirements specifically because of an **impairment or disturbance** in the functioning of the mind or brain. *When they have a diagnosed mental disorder that affects their thinking* - This describes the **diagnostic test**, which is necessary but not sufficient on its own to determine a lack of capacity. - Capacity is **decision-specific** and cannot be assumed solely based on a medical diagnosis or mental health condition. *When they make a decision that healthcare professionals consider unwise* - A key principle of the Act is that a person is not treated as lacking capacity merely because they make an **unwise or eccentric decision**. - Individuals have the **autonomy** to make choices that others may disagree with, provided they have the functional capacity to do so. *When family members disagree with the person's decision and request capacity assessment* - Disagreement from **family members** does not constitute a lack of capacity; the assessment must be based on the patient's own abilities. - Capacity is an **objective assessment** of the individual's cognitive function regarding a specific decision at a specific time. *When they have previously made poor decisions about their healthcare* - **Past decisions** do not determine current capacity, as capacity is **fluctuating** and must be assessed at the time the decision needs to be made. - The Act presumes every adult has capacity unless proven otherwise, regardless of their **history** of healthcare choices.
Question 138: A 71-year-old man with capacity develops infective endocarditis requiring 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. During discussion, he reveals he does not want any blood tests during his admission because he is 'fed up with needles'. Blood tests are essential to monitor antibiotic levels and renal function. What is the legally correct approach?
- A. Respect his refusal and proceed with antibiotic treatment without monitoring
- B. Explain the importance of blood tests, but if he still refuses with capacity, respect his decision and document clearly (Correct Answer)
- C. Apply for a Court of Protection order to authorise blood tests in his best interests
- D. Assess his capacity regarding the blood test decision and if he lacks capacity, proceed in his best interests
- E. Wait until he develops acute kidney injury then take blood tests under emergency provisions
Explanation: ***Explain the importance of blood tests, but if he still refuses with capacity, respect his decision and document clearly*** - A patient with **mental capacity** has the absolute legal right to refuse medical investigations or treatment, even if that refusal may lead to death or serious harm. - The clinician's duty is to ensure the patient is **fully informed** of the risks of refusal, explore alternatives, and **document the discussion** and refusal in the medical records. *Respect his refusal and proceed with antibiotic treatment without monitoring* - While the refusal must be respected, jumping straight to this without **explaining the necessity** and exploring the patient's concerns (needle phobia) is poor clinical practice. - Clinicians must first attempt to **negotiate and inform** the patient about why monitoring is essential for safe antibiotic delivery. *Apply for a Court of Protection order to authorise blood tests in his best interests* - The **Court of Protection** only has jurisdiction over individuals who **lack capacity** under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. - It is legally impermissible to use a court order to override the **capacitous refusal** of an adult regarding their own physical health treatment. *Assess his capacity regarding the blood test decision and if he lacks capacity, proceed in his best interests* - The scenario explicitly states the patient **has capacity**, so there is no legal basis to ignore his current decision under the **Best Interests** principle. - Capacity is **decision-specific**, and since he understands the situation but is simply 'fed up', he remains the final arbiter of his care. *Wait until he develops acute kidney injury then take blood tests under emergency provisions* - This approach is **unethical and dangerous**, as it involves a deliberate plan to allow harm to occur before intervening. - **Emergency provisions** or the Doctrine of Necessity cannot be used to circumvent a previously expressed, **capacitous refusal** of a specific intervention.
Question 139: A 23-year-old woman with severe anorexia nervosa (BMI 11.5 kg/m²) is admitted with life-threatening complications including hypoglycaemia, bradycardia (38 bpm), and hypotension. She refuses all treatment including intravenous fluids and nasogastric feeding, stating she wants to die. Mental Capacity Act assessment suggests she lacks capacity specifically regarding treatment decisions. What is the most appropriate legal framework for treatment?
- A. Treat under Mental Health Act Section 3 as anorexia nervosa is a mental disorder
- B. Treat under common law doctrine of necessity as an emergency
- C. Treat under Mental Capacity Act Section 5 (best interests) after appropriate consultation (Correct Answer)
- D. Respect her refusal as she is an adult with a right to refuse treatment
- E. Apply for Court of Protection urgent hearing before any treatment
Explanation: ***Treat under Mental Capacity Act Section 5 (best interests) after appropriate consultation***- Given that the patient has been assessed as **lacking capacity** for treatment decisions due to severe anorexia nervosa and its life-threatening complications, the **Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005** provides the legal framework.- Section 5 of the MCA permits healthcare professionals to provide necessary **life-sustaining treatment** (e.g., IV fluids, nasogastric feeding) in the patient's **best interests** without court approval, provided proper consultation occurs.*Treat under Mental Health Act Section 3 as anorexia nervosa is a mental disorder*- While anorexia nervosa is a mental disorder, the **Mental Health Act (MHA)** is generally used for the treatment of the *mental disorder itself* or when a patient poses a risk to themselves or others due to their mental illness, requiring detention.- In this case, the immediate need is for **physical life-sustaining treatment** due to severe physical complications, which is better addressed under the MCA when capacity is lacking.*Treat under common law doctrine of necessity as an emergency*- The **common law doctrine of necessity** applies when there's an immediate, life-threatening emergency and it's impossible or impractical to obtain consent or carry out a formal capacity assessment.- Here, a **formal Mental Capacity Act assessment** has already been conducted, establishing that the patient lacks capacity, which means the statutory framework of the **MCA** should be used over common law.*Respect her refusal as she is an adult with a right to refuse treatment*- A patient's right to refuse treatment is absolute *only if they have the mental capacity* to make that decision.- Since the patient has been formally assessed as **lacking capacity** regarding treatment decisions, her refusal is not legally binding, and care must proceed in her **best interests** under the MCA.*Apply for Court of Protection urgent hearing before any treatment*- Applying to the **Court of Protection** for an urgent hearing would cause a significant and potentially **life-threatening delay** in providing essential, urgent medical care for her severe physical complications.- The MCA empowers clinicians to provide **life-sustaining treatment** in a patient's **best interests** without court sanction in emergencies or where capacity is clearly lacking, as is the case here.
Question 140: A 65-year-old man with end-stage idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is admitted with worsening dyspnoea despite maximal medical therapy. His oxygen saturations are 82% on 15L non-rebreather mask. The respiratory team discuss with him that his condition is terminal and suggest initiating palliative care. He has capacity and requests that 'everything possible' be done. What is the most appropriate next step?
- A. Initiate non-invasive ventilation and refer to ICU for possible intubation
- B. Commence palliative sedation to relieve his distress
- C. Explain that further escalation would be futile and implement a DNACPR order without his consent
- D. Respect his wishes but explain treatment limitations and explore what 'everything possible' means to him (Correct Answer)
- E. Contact hospital legal team to seek court approval for a DNACPR decision
Explanation: ***Respect his wishes but explain treatment limitations and explore what 'everything possible' means to him*** - This approach prioritizes **patient autonomy** and **shared decision-making** by acknowledging his request while initiating a crucial conversation about the **goals of care** and the realistic limitations of medical interventions in **end-stage disease**. - Exploring what **'everything possible'** means to the patient allows for understanding his underlying fears, values, and specific desires, which may not necessarily equate to aggressive, futile medical treatments. *Initiate non-invasive ventilation and refer to ICU for possible intubation* - For **end-stage idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis**, aggressive interventions like **intubation** and **mechanical ventilation** are typically considered **futile** and can prolong suffering without improving prognosis, violating the principle of **non-maleficence**. - Providing treatments that offer no **clinical benefit** and are highly unlikely to succeed is not ethically justifiable, even if specifically requested by a patient with capacity. *Commence palliative sedation to relieve his distress* - Initiating **palliative sedation** without the patient's explicit **consent** when he has full **capacity** would be a violation of his autonomy and could be considered battery. - Palliative sedation is a last resort for **refractory symptoms** and must be a **shared decision**, not a unilateral clinician choice imposed on a conscious patient. *Explain that further escalation would be futile and implement a DNACPR order without his consent* - While clinicians can determine the **medical futility** of CPR, unilaterally implementing a **DNACPR** order without any attempt at **consultation** or explanation to a patient with capacity is a direct violation of their **autonomy** and human rights. - High-quality communication and **shared decision-making** are paramount, even when discussing the futility of interventions. *Contact hospital legal team to seek court approval for a DNACPR decision* - A **court order** is generally not required for medical teams to make a **DNACPR decision** based on clinical futility, especially when there has been open communication with the patient or family. - This step is **premature** and typically reserved for situations of irresolvable conflict, not as a primary response before attempting thorough discussion and consensus.
Practice by Chapter
Want unlimited practice?
Get full access to all questions, explanations, and performance tracking.
Start For Free