Ethics & Law — MCQs
On this page
A 19-year-old man with Down syndrome (IQ 48) living with his parents requires inguinal hernia repair. During the consent discussion, he can name the body part affected and says he wants 'the lump fixed', but cannot explain what the operation involves or any risks. His parents are keen for surgery and offer to sign consent. Capacity assessment confirms he lacks capacity for this decision. What is the legally correct basis for proceeding with surgery?
A 45-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer is admitted with hypercalcaemia and confusion. After treatment, she regains capacity and states she wants no further active treatment and wishes to go home to die. Her husband and two adult children are extremely upset and insist she must continue chemotherapy. She asks you not to discuss her decision with her family. Later, her husband confronts you demanding to know her treatment plan. What is the most appropriate action?
Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, what is the correct legal test that must be satisfied for a person to lack capacity to make a specific decision?
A 72-year-old man with prostate cancer metastatic to bone is receiving palliative care at home. His wife contacts the on-call GP stating he has become drowsy over the past 6 hours and is now unresponsive. On arrival, the patient has no verbal response, does not open eyes to voice, and withdraws to pain only (GCS 7). His advance care plan from 2 weeks ago states 'I do not want to be admitted to hospital in the final stages'. What is the most appropriate management?
A 26-year-old woman with autism spectrum disorder attends for an elective cholecystectomy. She becomes very anxious during the consent process and starts rocking back and forth, repeatedly stating 'too many words, too many words'. She has previously expressed desire for the surgery when discussed at outpatient clinic. Her mother is present and offers to sign the consent form on her behalf. What is the most appropriate next step?
A 58-year-old woman with end-stage liver disease secondary to alcohol-related cirrhosis is dying in hospital. She has hepatic encephalopathy and lacks capacity. She has been estranged from her husband for 10 years but they never divorced. Her partner of 8 years, with whom she lives, requests that her husband not be contacted or involved in decisions. Her husband arrives demanding to make decisions as 'legal next of kin'. Who should be consulted about her best interests?
Which of the following situations would legally justify a doctor breaching patient confidentiality without the patient's consent in the UK?
A 44-year-old man who is a Jehovah's Witness is admitted following a road traffic collision with ongoing intra-abdominal bleeding. He has capacity and has signed an advance decision refusing blood products under all circumstances. His haemoglobin drops to 45 g/L and he loses consciousness. The surgical team believes he will die without transfusion. What is the legally correct action?
A 81-year-old man with end-stage COPD is admitted with an infective exacerbation and type 2 respiratory failure. Despite maximum medical therapy including non-invasive ventilation, he continues to deteriorate. He has capacity and states he is 'tired of fighting' and wants all treatment stopped. His three adult children are present: one supports his decision, one insists 'everything must be done', and one cannot decide. What is the appropriate course of action?
A 15-year-old girl attends the sexual health clinic alone requesting long-acting reversible contraception. She has been in a relationship with a 16-year-old boy for 6 months. She understands the risks and benefits and does not want her parents informed. According to the Fraser Guidelines, which factor would make it appropriate to provide contraception without parental involvement?
Ethics & Law UK Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Question 151: A 19-year-old man with Down syndrome (IQ 48) living with his parents requires inguinal hernia repair. During the consent discussion, he can name the body part affected and says he wants 'the lump fixed', but cannot explain what the operation involves or any risks. His parents are keen for surgery and offer to sign consent. Capacity assessment confirms he lacks capacity for this decision. What is the legally correct basis for proceeding with surgery?
- A. Parental consent as he has a learning disability
- B. Court of Protection authorisation must be obtained
- C. Best interests decision under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Correct Answer)
- D. Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) must provide consent
- E. Section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act emergency provisions
Explanation: ***Best interests decision under the Mental Capacity Act 2005***- For an adult (18+) who lacks capacity, the **Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005** dictates that decisions must be made in their **best interests** by the clinical team following consultation.- This involves considering the patient's **past and present wishes**, the views of **family/carers**, and whether the procedure is the least restrictive option for their health.*Parental consent as he has a learning disability*- In the UK, **parental responsibility** ends at age 18; parents cannot legally provide consent for an adult child regardless of disability status.- While parents must be **consulted** as part of the best interests process, they do not have the legal authority to sign the consent form.*Court of Protection authorisation must be obtained*- The **Court of Protection** is usually reserved for complex, disputed cases or specific ethical dilemmas, such as **organ donation** or withdrawal of life support.- Routine, beneficial surgeries like an **inguinal hernia repair** do not require court intervention if there is no disagreement among those interested in the patient's welfare.*Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) must provide consent*- An **IMCA** may be involved if a patient has **no family or friends** to represent them for serious medical treatments, but they do not provide legal consent.- Since the patient has supportive parents who are involved in his care, an **IMCA referral** is not legally required in this scenario.*Section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act emergency provisions*- **Section 5** provides legal protection for clinicians performing urgent acts or care for someone lacking capacity, but it is typically applied to **emergencies**.- An elective inguinal hernia repair is a **planned procedure**, and the formal best interests pathway should be documented rather than relying on emergency provisions.
Question 152: A 45-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer is admitted with hypercalcaemia and confusion. After treatment, she regains capacity and states she wants no further active treatment and wishes to go home to die. Her husband and two adult children are extremely upset and insist she must continue chemotherapy. She asks you not to discuss her decision with her family. Later, her husband confronts you demanding to know her treatment plan. What is the most appropriate action?
- A. Explain her decision to the family as they need to understand her wishes
- B. Tell the husband you cannot discuss her care without her consent (Correct Answer)
- C. Arrange a family meeting with the patient present to discuss her wishes
- D. Provide general information about treatment options without specific details
- E. Contact the hospital legal team before responding to the husband
Explanation: ***Tell the husband you cannot discuss her care without her consent***- The patient has **capacity** and has explicitly requested that her decision not be discussed with her family, making **confidentiality** the primary ethical and legal obligation.- Respecting **autonomy** means the healthcare professional must honor the patient's refusal to share information, regardless of the family's distress or disagreement with her clinical choices.*Explain her decision to the family as they need to understand her wishes*- Disclosing specific medical decisions against a patient's wishes is a direct breach of **patient confidentiality** and professional ethics code.- While the family is upset, their "need to understand" does not override the legal right of a competent adult to keep their **medical information** private.*Arrange a family meeting with the patient present to discuss her wishes*- The patient specifically asked that her decision **not be discussed** with her family, so forcing or even proposing a joint meeting at this stage may ignore her direct request.- While a facilitated discussion might be helpful later, you cannot initiate such a meeting without first obtaining the **patient's explicit consent** to do so.*Provide general information about treatment options without specific details*- Providing even "general" information in this context risks indirectly revealing that the patient is refusing **active treatment**, breaching her trust.- The priority is to inform the husband that **confidentiality** rules prevent any discussion of the case, rather than attempting to bypass the issue with vague details.*Contact the hospital legal team before responding to the husband*- This is a standard matter of **clinical ethics** and patient rights that does not require immediate legal intervention or a judicial ruling.- A doctor with basic knowledge of **GMC/ethical guidelines** should be able to manage this interaction by upholding the duty of confidentiality without escalating to a legal team.
Question 153: Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, what is the correct legal test that must be satisfied for a person to lack capacity to make a specific decision?
- A. They have an impairment of the mind or brain AND cannot make the decision (Correct Answer)
- B. They have a diagnosis of dementia or learning disability
- C. They make a decision that healthcare professionals consider unwise
- D. They have an MMSE score below 24/30
- E. They are unable to communicate their decision in any way
Explanation: ***They have an impairment of the mind or brain AND cannot make the decision***- The **Mental Capacity Act 2005** requires a two-stage test: a **diagnostic stage** (impairment of mind or brain) and a **functional stage** (inability to make the specific decision).- Both elements must be linked, meaning the **functional inability** to decide must be directly caused by the **cognitive impairment**.*They have a diagnosis of dementia or learning disability*- A medical diagnosis alone does not prove lack of capacity; the Act emphasizes that capacity is **decision-specific** and **time-specific**.- Under the first principle of the Act, a person must be **assumed to have capacity** unless it is established otherwise, regardless of their condition.*They make a decision that healthcare professionals consider unwise*- One of the five core principles of the Act is that a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because they make an **unwise decision**.- Individuals have the right to make choices that conflict with the values of **medical professionals**, provided they understand the risks.*They have an MMSE score below 24/30*- The **Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)** is a screening tool for cognitive impairment but is not a legal assessment of **functional capacity**.- Capacity is about the ability to **understand, retain, weigh**, and **communicate** information for a specific choice, not a numerical test score.*They are unable to communicate their decision in any way*- While communication is part of the functional test, the Act requires that all **practicable steps** must be taken to help the person communicate before capacity is deemed lacking.- Inability to communicate only satisfies the functional stage if it remains impossible after all **supportive measures** (like aids or speech therapy) have been exhausted.
Question 154: A 72-year-old man with prostate cancer metastatic to bone is receiving palliative care at home. His wife contacts the on-call GP stating he has become drowsy over the past 6 hours and is now unresponsive. On arrival, the patient has no verbal response, does not open eyes to voice, and withdraws to pain only (GCS 7). His advance care plan from 2 weeks ago states 'I do not want to be admitted to hospital in the final stages'. What is the most appropriate management?
- A. Arrange emergency hospital admission for investigation of reduced consciousness
- B. Contact the palliative care team to arrange hospice admission
- C. Provide supportive care at home in line with his advance care plan (Correct Answer)
- D. Contact his next of kin to make a best interests decision about admission
- E. Admit to hospital as he lacks capacity to refuse admission now
Explanation: ***Provide supportive care at home in line with his advance care plan*** - An **Advance Care Plan (ACP)** or advance statement of wishes is a valid expression of a patient's **autonomy** and must be respected when the patient lacks the capacity to make decisions. - The preference to avoid hospital admission in the **final stages** of metastatic cancer is specific and applicable here, as the patient’s **GCS of 7** and rapid decline suggest he is entering the end-of-life phase. *Arrange emergency hospital admission for investigation of reduced consciousness* - This directly contradicts the patient's documented **Advance Care Plan**, which explicitly states he does not want to be admitted during the final stages of his illness. - In palliative care, prioritising **quality of life** and patient wishes over invasive investigations for irreversible conditions is the standard of practice. *Contact the palliative care team to arrange hospice admission* - While hospice provides excellent end-of-life care, any admission to an inpatient facility would likely violate the patient's stated wish to **remain at home** and avoid hospital-like settings. - Management should focus on coordinating **community palliative resources** to ensure the patient is comfortable and supported in his current environment. *Contact his next of kin to make a best interests decision about admission* - A **best interests decision** by next of kin or clinicians is only required when a patient’s wishes are unknown; a valid **Advance Care Plan** takes precedence. - While it is important to support the wife and keep her informed, she cannot override a clear, **pre-stated refusal** of admission made by the patient while he had capacity. *Admit to hospital as he lacks capacity to refuse admission now* - Although the patient currently lacks **mental capacity** (GCS 7), a refusal of treatment or admission made previously while competent remains legally and ethically binding. - Ignoring a valid **Advance Directive** or documented care plan simply because the patient is now unresponsive is a breach of **medical ethics** and patient rights.
Question 155: A 26-year-old woman with autism spectrum disorder attends for an elective cholecystectomy. She becomes very anxious during the consent process and starts rocking back and forth, repeatedly stating 'too many words, too many words'. She has previously expressed desire for the surgery when discussed at outpatient clinic. Her mother is present and offers to sign the consent form on her behalf. What is the most appropriate next step?
- A. Accept the mother's signature as she has parental responsibility
- B. Postpone the procedure and reassess capacity when the patient is calmer
- C. Proceed with the surgery as she previously consented in clinic
- D. Use simplified communication methods to support capacity assessment (Correct Answer)
- E. Detain the patient under the Mental Health Act to proceed with treatment
Explanation: ***Use simplified communication methods to support capacity assessment*** - Under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**, all practicable steps must be taken to help a person make their own decision before concluding they lack capacity. - For a patient with **autism spectrum disorder**, this includes adjusting the environment and using **simplified language** or visual aids to overcome communication barriers, allowing for a proper assessment of their current capacity. *Accept the mother's signature as she has parental responsibility* - **Parental responsibility** ends at the age of 18; the mother cannot legally sign a consent form for an adult unless she has **Lasting Power of Attorney** for health and welfare, which is not mentioned. - A family member's preference or offer to sign cannot override the patient's own **autonomy** or the statutory process for assessing and supporting capacity. *Postpone the procedure and reassess capacity when the patient is calmer* - Postponing is a secondary measure; clinicians must first attempt to **maximize capacity** by adapting communication and reducing **sensory overload** for a patient with autism spectrum disorder. - Unnecessarily delaying a clinically indicated procedure without first trying supportive communication methods fails to meet the legal duty to support capacity under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**. *Proceed with the surgery as she previously consented in clinic* - Consent is a **continuing process**, and the clinician must ensure that the patient still possesses capacity and agrees to the procedure at the time of surgery. - The patient's current distress and verbalized anxiety ('too many words') strongly suggest she is not currently in a state of **informed consent**, requiring a fresh assessment of her current understanding. *Detain the patient under the Mental Health Act to proceed with treatment* - The **Mental Health Act** is used for the treatment of **mental disorders** where detention is necessary for the patient's or others' safety, not for performing elective physical surgeries like a cholecystectomy. - Detaining the patient would be an **inappropriate and disproportionate** response to communication difficulties or anxiety during the consent process for an elective procedure.
Question 156: A 58-year-old woman with end-stage liver disease secondary to alcohol-related cirrhosis is dying in hospital. She has hepatic encephalopathy and lacks capacity. She has been estranged from her husband for 10 years but they never divorced. Her partner of 8 years, with whom she lives, requests that her husband not be contacted or involved in decisions. Her husband arrives demanding to make decisions as 'legal next of kin'. Who should be consulted about her best interests?
- A. Only her legal husband as he has automatic decision-making authority
- B. Only her long-term partner as he has been her primary relationship
- C. Both her husband and partner should be consulted along with others close to her (Correct Answer)
- D. Neither should be consulted as healthcare professionals determine best interests when family disagree
- E. Apply to the Court of Protection to appoint the appropriate decision-maker
Explanation: ***Both her husband and partner should be consulted along with others close to her*** - Under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA)**, when a patient lacks capacity, decision-makers must consult anyone **interested in their welfare** or caring for them to determine their **best interests**. - There is no legal concept of **'next of kin'** with automatic decision-making authority; therefore, views from both the estranged husband and the long-term partner are crucial to establish the patient's **wishes, feelings, beliefs, and values**. *Only her legal husband as he has automatic decision-making authority* - In English law, being a **legal spouse** does not grant automatic rights to make medical decisions unless they hold a **Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)** or are a court-appointed deputy. - Relying solely on the husband would disregard the valuable perspective of her long-term partner, who has been her **primary carer** and likely knows her recent wishes best. *Only her long-term partner as he has been her primary relationship* - While the partner's views are highly significant for understanding her current life and wishes, excluding the husband entirely is inappropriate if he is genuinely **interested in her welfare** and can contribute to understanding her past values. - The MCA encourages gathering a **holistic view** of the patient's life, which may involve input from various individuals who knew her at different stages. *Neither should be consulted as healthcare professionals determine best interests when family disagree* - While the **final decision** about best interests rests with the healthcare professionals, failing to consult those close to the patient is a breach of **statutory duties** under the Mental Capacity Act. - Healthcare professionals are legally obligated to take into account the **views of family and friends** to ensure the decision is patient-centered and respects their likely wishes. *Apply to the Court of Protection to appoint the appropriate decision-maker* - Recourse to the **Court of Protection** is typically a measure of last resort, reserved for **serious disputes** or particularly complex ethical and legal dilemmas. - The initial and primary step, even in disagreement, is to follow the **best interests consultation process** as mandated by the MCA, involving relevant family and partners.
Question 157: Which of the following situations would legally justify a doctor breaching patient confidentiality without the patient's consent in the UK?
- A. A patient's employer calls requesting information about why they have been absent from work
- B. A 28-year-old man with HIV infection refuses to tell his regular sexual partner; you disclose after counselling fails (Correct Answer)
- C. A patient's adult daughter asks about her mother's diagnosis as she is 'concerned and has a right to know'
- D. A journalist investigating hospital mortality rates requests information about a patient's care
- E. A patient's medical insurance company requests full medical records to process a claim
Explanation: ***A 28-year-old man with HIV infection refuses to tell his regular sexual partner; you disclose after counselling fails*** - Per **GMC guidance**, confidentiality may be breached in the **public interest** to protect a specific person from **serious harm** or death. - Disclosure is justified only after the doctor has informed the patient of their intent and attempts to encourage the patient to disclose the information themselves have **failed**. *A patient's employer calls requesting information about why they have been absent from work* - Employers have no automatic right to a patient's medical details; information should only be shared with the patient's **explicit consent**. - Doctors should provide a **Fit Note (Med3)** which the patient can choose to share, containing only necessary details for work-related adjustments. *A patient's adult daughter asks about her mother's diagnosis as she is 'concerned and has a right to know'* - Family members have no automatic legal right to access medical information of an **adult patient with capacity** without that patient's permission. - Maintaining **patient autonomy** is paramount, and a daughter's concern does not override the legal duty of confidentiality. *A journalist investigating hospital mortality rates requests information about a patient's care* - Journalists have no legal standing or **public interest justification** to access private medical records without consent. - **Identifiable patient data** must be protected; only anonymized or aggregated data can be shared for research or journalistic transparency. *A patient's medical insurance company requests full medical records to process a claim* - Insurance companies must obtain **written consent** from the patient before a doctor can legally release medical records or reports. - Doctors must ensure that the patient understands the **scope of disclosure** and that the information provided is relevant and not excessive for the claim.
Question 158: A 44-year-old man who is a Jehovah's Witness is admitted following a road traffic collision with ongoing intra-abdominal bleeding. He has capacity and has signed an advance decision refusing blood products under all circumstances. His haemoglobin drops to 45 g/L and he loses consciousness. The surgical team believes he will die without transfusion. What is the legally correct action?
- A. Transfuse blood as he has lost capacity and treatment is life-saving
- B. Respect the advance decision and manage without blood products (Correct Answer)
- C. Seek urgent court authorization to transfuse as this overrides advance decisions in emergencies
- D. Obtain consent from his wife for transfusion as next of kin
- E. Transfuse under common law necessity as his life is in immediate danger
Explanation: ***Respect the advance decision and manage without blood products*** - A **valid and applicable advance decision** to refuse treatment (ADRT) is legally binding under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**, even if it results in the patient's death. - Because the patient had **capacity** when he signed the document and specifically addressed the scenario (refusing blood products), the medical team must respect his **autonomy** despite his current loss of consciousness. *Transfuse blood as he has lost capacity and treatment is life-saving* - While treatment is life-saving, a patient's **prior competent refusal** overrides the clinical assessment of **best interests** once they lose capacity. - Forcing a transfusion against a known, valid ADRT would constitute a **battery** or legal trespass under the law. *Seek urgent court authorization to transfuse as this overrides advance decisions in emergencies* - The court lacks the authority to override a **valid and applicable ADRT** made by a competent adult, as it represents the patient's own exercise of **bodily autonomy**. - Court intervention is typically reserved for cases where the **validity or applicability** of the ADRT is in doubt, which is not suggested here. *Obtain consent from his wife for transfusion as next of kin* - In English law, a **next of kin** has no legal authority to consent to or refuse treatment for an adult patient who lacks capacity. - Even if she held a **Lasting Power of Attorney**, she could not override a specific advance decision previously made by the patient regarding that treatment. *Transfuse under common law necessity as his life is in immediate danger* - **Common law necessity** and "best interests" can only be used to justify treatment when a patient's wishes are **unknown**. - Because the patient's refusal is clearly documented and **legally binding**, the principle of necessity cannot be used to bypass his expressed refusal.
Question 159: A 81-year-old man with end-stage COPD is admitted with an infective exacerbation and type 2 respiratory failure. Despite maximum medical therapy including non-invasive ventilation, he continues to deteriorate. He has capacity and states he is 'tired of fighting' and wants all treatment stopped. His three adult children are present: one supports his decision, one insists 'everything must be done', and one cannot decide. What is the appropriate course of action?
- A. Continue treatment until family consensus is reached as next of kin must agree with treatment withdrawal
- B. Hold a family meeting and take a majority vote on whether to continue treatment
- C. Respect the patient's decision and develop a plan to withdraw treatment with appropriate palliative care (Correct Answer)
- D. Continue treatment as family disagreement makes the best interests unclear
- E. Refer to the Court of Protection to resolve the family disagreement
Explanation: ***Respect the patient's decision and develop a plan to withdraw treatment with appropriate palliative care*** - A competent patient has the absolute **legal and ethical right** to refuse any medical treatment, even if that refusal may result in death. - Since the patient has **mental capacity**, his autonomy supersedes the opinions of his family members or medical staff. *Continue treatment until family consensus is reached as next of kin must agree with treatment withdrawal* - The concept of "next of kin" does not grant family members **legal authority** to override the wishes of a capacitous patient. - Waiting for **family consensus** unnecessarily violates the patient’s right to self-determination and prolongs treatment against his will. *Hold a family meeting and take a majority vote on whether to continue treatment* - Medical decisions are not based on a **majority vote** of relatives; the patient's specific request is the governing factor. - While a family meeting is useful for **communication and support**, it cannot be used to negate the patient's autonomous decision. *Continue treatment as family disagreement makes the best interests unclear* - The **'best interests'** principle is only applied under the Mental Capacity Act when a patient **lacks capacity**. - Because the patient possesses capacity, his **expressed wish** defines what is in his best interest, regardless of familial conflict. *Refer to the Court of Protection to resolve the family disagreement* - The **Court of Protection** is utilized for disputes regarding patients who **lack capacity** to make decisions for themselves. - Legal intervention is not required here because the patient's **competent refusal** is legally binding and sufficient to stop treatment.
Question 160: A 15-year-old girl attends the sexual health clinic alone requesting long-acting reversible contraception. She has been in a relationship with a 16-year-old boy for 6 months. She understands the risks and benefits and does not want her parents informed. According to the Fraser Guidelines, which factor would make it appropriate to provide contraception without parental involvement?
- A. She is under 16 so parental consent is always legally required for contraception
- B. She is likely to have sexual intercourse with or without contraception, and her physical or mental health would suffer without it (Correct Answer)
- C. Her partner is over 16 which constitutes statutory rape requiring immediate safeguarding referral
- D. All under-16s requesting contraception must be referred to social services before provision
- E. Contraception can only be provided to under-16s with both parents' written consent
Explanation: ***She is likely to have sexual intercourse with or without contraception, and her physical or mental health would suffer without it*** - This criterion is central to the **Fraser guidelines**, which permit healthcare professionals to provide contraception to a young person under 16 if they are mature enough to understand the advice and its implications (**Gillick competence**), are having or likely to have **sexual intercourse**, and their **physical or mental health** would suffer without contraception. - The guidelines prioritize the young person's health and well-being, allowing access to essential care even if parental involvement is not possible or desired. *She is under 16 so parental consent is always legally required for contraception* - This statement is incorrect. The **Gillick competence** principle, further clarified by the **Fraser guidelines**, allows minors under 16 to consent to their own medical treatment, including contraception, if they demonstrate sufficient understanding and maturity. - Parental consent is not universally required; the focus is on the young person's capacity to make an informed decision. *Her partner is over 16 which constitutes statutory rape requiring immediate safeguarding referral* - In the UK, while the **age of consent** is 16, there are **close-in-age exemptions** (e.g., if both individuals are over 13 and one is 16-17, the other is 13-15 and the age difference is no more than two years) that apply to consensual relationships and prevent an automatic criminal charge or mandatory safeguarding referral for statutory rape. - Healthcare professionals must still assess for any signs of **coercion, exploitation, or abuse**, but a one-year age difference in an apparently consensual relationship does not automatically mandate a safeguarding referral for statutory rape. *All under-16s requesting contraception must be referred to social services before provision* - This is an incorrect interpretation of safeguarding procedures. Requesting contraception alone does not indicate that a young person is at **significant risk of harm** or necessitates a mandatory referral to social services. - A referral to **social services** is only required if there are genuine safeguarding concerns, such as suspected abuse, neglect, or if the young person is unable to protect themselves from harm, none of which are indicated solely by requesting contraception. *Contraception can only be provided to under-16s with both parents' written consent* - This is incorrect. There is no legal requirement for **written parental consent** for contraception if the young person is deemed **Gillick competent** and meets the criteria outlined in the Fraser guidelines. - Insisting on parental consent when a young person is competent and wishes for confidentiality can deter them from seeking necessary healthcare, potentially leading to increased risks of unintended pregnancy or STIs.
Practice by Chapter
Want unlimited practice?
Get full access to all questions, explanations, and performance tracking.
Start For Free