Ethics & Law — MCQs
On this page
A 16-year-old girl presents requesting contraception. She does not want her parents informed. During the consultation, she demonstrates clear understanding of the contraceptive methods, their benefits and risks, and the implications of sexual activity. She is in a relationship with her 17-year-old boyfriend. What is the most appropriate action regarding her request and parental notification?
A 34-year-old man with a needle-phobia attends for a blood test. He becomes extremely anxious and, despite wanting the test, starts to leave. He asks if you can take the blood while he is briefly sedated. He has capacity and there are no medical contraindications to sedation. Which ethical principle most strongly supports offering sedation to enable the blood test?
A 72-year-old woman with moderate dementia (MMSE 18/30) requires a hip replacement following a fall. She appears agreeable when the procedure is mentioned but cannot recall the conversation minutes later. Her daughter, who does not have Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare, insists her mother would never have wanted surgery. How should consent for this non-emergency procedure be approached?
A 45-year-old woman with severe depression is admitted following a paracetamol overdose. She requires N-acetylcysteine treatment but refuses, stating she wants to die. She scores 28/30 on the Mini-Mental State Examination and can describe the consequences of refusing treatment. A psychiatrist assesses her and confirms she has severe depression but understands the treatment information. What is the legal basis for treating her against her wishes?
A 68-year-old man with advanced metastatic lung cancer is admitted with increasing breathlessness and pain. He has capacity and clearly states he does not want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if his heart stops. His wife strongly disagrees and insists that everything must be done to keep him alive. What is the most appropriate course of action regarding the Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decision?
Ethics & Law UK Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Question 241: A 16-year-old girl presents requesting contraception. She does not want her parents informed. During the consultation, she demonstrates clear understanding of the contraceptive methods, their benefits and risks, and the implications of sexual activity. She is in a relationship with her 17-year-old boyfriend. What is the most appropriate action regarding her request and parental notification?
- A. Provide contraception and maintain confidentiality as she is Gillick competent (Correct Answer)
- B. Refuse contraception and inform her parents as she is under 16
- C. Provide contraception but inform her parents due to safeguarding concerns
- D. Defer the decision until she turns 16 and can legally consent
- E. Provide contraception only after obtaining parental consent
Explanation: ***Provide contraception and maintain confidentiality as she is Gillick competent*** - Under the **Fraser guidelines** (also known as Gillick competence), a person under 16 can consent to their own medical treatment, including contraception, if they have **sufficient maturity** and intelligence to understand the treatment and its implications. - Since the patient demonstrates clear understanding and there are no **safeguarding concerns** with a peer-aged partner, the doctor must respect her **confidentiality** and act in her best clinical interests. *Refuse contraception and inform her parents as she is under 16* - Age alone does not determine the ability to consent; **Gillick competence** allows minors to make decisions if they have adequate understanding, regardless of being under 16. - Informing parents against the patient's wishes when she is competent would be a **breach of confidentiality** and may discourage her from seeking essential medical care. *Provide contraception but inform her parents due to safeguarding concerns* - There is no evidence of an **abusive relationship** or exploitation; her boyfriend is of a similar age (17), meaning no immediate **safeguarding trigger** exists that would justify breaching confidentiality. - Breeching confidentiality without a valid **public interest justification** (e.g., significant harm to the minor) undermines the trust essential for adolescent healthcare. *Defer the decision until she turns 16 and can legally consent* - Delaying treatment ignores the **immediate risk** of an unplanned pregnancy for a sexually active individual and potentially exposes the patient to harm. - Doctors have a duty to provide timely and appropriate care to **competent minors** regardless of the proximity to their 16th birthday. *Provide contraception only after obtaining parental consent* - Requiring **parental consent** for a Gillick competent minor is legally incorrect and violates the patient's **autonomy** and right to confidential care. - The legal framework of Gillick competence specifically exists to ensure young people can access **sexual health services** safely and confidentially without necessarily involving their parents.
Question 242: A 34-year-old man with a needle-phobia attends for a blood test. He becomes extremely anxious and, despite wanting the test, starts to leave. He asks if you can take the blood while he is briefly sedated. He has capacity and there are no medical contraindications to sedation. Which ethical principle most strongly supports offering sedation to enable the blood test?
- A. Beneficence - acting in the patient's best interests by enabling necessary investigation
- B. Non-maleficence - avoiding the psychological harm of severe anxiety
- C. Justice - ensuring equal access to healthcare for those with phobias
- D. Autonomy - respecting the patient's capacitous choice to undergo the procedure with support (Correct Answer)
- E. Utility - maximizing overall benefit by completing the investigation efficiently
Explanation: ***Autonomy - respecting the patient's capacitous choice to undergo the procedure with support***- Respecting **autonomy** means facilitating a competent patient's wishes and choices, specifically by providing **reasonable adjustments** like sedation to help them complete a procedure they have consented to.- The core of the ethical dilemma is the patient's **express request**; as they have **capacity**, their personal preference for how they receive treatment must be the primary driver of the clinical decision.*Beneficence - acting in the patient's best interests by enabling necessary investigation*- While performing the blood test is a **beneficial act**, this principle is secondary to **autonomy** when a capacitous patient specifically requests a certain method of care.- **Beneficence** often involves clinical judgment of what is "best," but here the patient has already self-identified their need and requested help to achieve it.*Non-maleficence - avoiding the psychological harm of severe anxiety*- **Non-maleficence** involves the duty to "do no harm"; while sedation prevents psychological trauma, the act of sedation itself carries intrinsic risks that must be balanced.- Preventing **psychological harm** is a valid concern, but it does not supersede the fundamental right of a **capacitous patient** to dictate their own care plan.*Justice - ensuring equal access to healthcare for those with phobias*- **Justice** refers to the fair and equitable distribution of medical resources across a **population** rather than the specific choice of an individual.- While offering sedation helps ensure **equitable access** for those with phobias, the direct justification for this specific patient's request is their individual **decision-making right**.*Utility - maximizing overall benefit by completing the investigation efficiently*- **Utility** is a consequentialist principle focused on the **greatest good for the greatest number**, which is less relevant in individualized clinical ethics.- In modern medical practice, **efficiency** and resource conservation are secondary to the ethical requirement to respect a **competent patient's** specific healthcare choices.
Question 243: A 72-year-old woman with moderate dementia (MMSE 18/30) requires a hip replacement following a fall. She appears agreeable when the procedure is mentioned but cannot recall the conversation minutes later. Her daughter, who does not have Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare, insists her mother would never have wanted surgery. How should consent for this non-emergency procedure be approached?
- A. Accept the daughter's views as she knows her mother best and proceed without surgery
- B. Assess the patient's capacity for this specific decision and determine best interests if she lacks capacity (Correct Answer)
- C. Proceed with surgery based on implied consent as the patient appears agreeable
- D. Apply to the Court of Protection for a decision before proceeding
- E. Wait until the daughter obtains Lasting Power of Attorney before making any decision
Explanation: ***Assess the patient's capacity for this specific decision and determine best interests if she lacks capacity***- The **Mental Capacity Act (MCA)** requires assessment of capacity for the **specific decision** at the time it needs to be made, not just relying on a dementia diagnosis or MMSE score.- If the patient lacks capacity (e.g., due to inability to **understand, retain, use, or weigh information**), decisions must be made in their **best interests**, involving family, caregivers, and considering the patient's past wishes and values.*Accept the daughter's views as she knows her mother best and proceed without surgery*- While a daughter's views are important for a **best interests assessment**, they are not legally determinative without a **Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)** for health and welfare.- The primary responsibility for making a **best interests decision** rests with the healthcare professional, ensuring the patient's overall well-being is considered.*Proceed with surgery based on implied consent as the patient appears agreeable*- **Implied consent** is generally insufficient for major invasive procedures like hip replacement, which require explicit **informed consent**.- The patient's inability to **retain information** indicates a potential lack of capacity, making any "agreement" unreliable for valid consent.*Apply to the Court of Protection for a decision before proceeding*- Referral to the **Court of Protection** is typically reserved for complex, disputed cases, or those involving highly intrusive treatments where there's no agreement on **best interests**.- For routine, non-emergency procedures where the **Mental Capacity Act (MCA)** framework can be applied by clinicians, court intervention is usually not necessary.*Wait until the daughter obtains Lasting Power of Attorney before making any decision*- A **Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)** must be made when the donor (the patient) **has mental capacity** to do so; it cannot be obtained retrospectively once capacity is lost.- Delaying a medically indicated procedure pending a legal process like a Deputyship (which is different from an LPA) could result in **unnecessary suffering** or deterioration for the patient.
Question 244: A 45-year-old woman with severe depression is admitted following a paracetamol overdose. She requires N-acetylcysteine treatment but refuses, stating she wants to die. She scores 28/30 on the Mini-Mental State Examination and can describe the consequences of refusing treatment. A psychiatrist assesses her and confirms she has severe depression but understands the treatment information. What is the legal basis for treating her against her wishes?
- A. Mental Capacity Act 2005 - she lacks capacity due to her mental illness affecting her decision-making (Correct Answer)
- B. Mental Health Act 1983 Section 3 - for treatment of her mental disorder
- C. Common law doctrine of necessity as this is a life-threatening emergency
- D. Mental Health Act 1983 Section 63 - treatment for mental disorder without consent
- E. She has capacity and treatment cannot be given against her wishes regardless of the consequences
Explanation: ***Mental Capacity Act 2005 - she lacks capacity due to her mental illness affecting her decision-making*** - Under the **Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005**, capacity is **decision-specific**; a severe mental illness like depression can impair a person's ability to **use or weigh** information, even if they can understand and retain it. - The patient's desire to die, stemming directly from her **severe depression**, indicates that her mental illness is preventing her from making a rational, life-preserving decision, thus she lacks capacity for this specific decision, allowing treatment in her **best interests**. *Mental Health Act 1983 Section 3 - for treatment of her mental disorder* - **Section 3** of the Mental Health Act is used for the compulsory **admission and treatment** of a mental disorder itself, not for the treatment of physical conditions like paracetamol overdose. - It cannot be used to force treatment for a **physical illness** against a patient's wishes, even if the physical illness resulted from the mental disorder, unless it is directly part of the mental health treatment. *Common law doctrine of necessity as this is a life-threatening emergency* - The **common law doctrine of necessity** is typically applied in urgent, life-threatening situations where a patient's capacity is unknown or they are unconscious and a statutory framework is not readily applicable. - In this scenario, there is time for a formal capacity assessment, and the **Mental Capacity Act 2005** provides a more specific and appropriate legal framework for making decisions for individuals who lack capacity. *Mental Health Act 1983 Section 63 - treatment for mental disorder without consent* - **Section 63** of the Mental Health Act allows for the treatment of a **mental disorder** without consent for detained patients. - However, it does not provide legal authority for treating **physical conditions** such as paracetamol toxicity with N-acetylcysteine, as this is treatment for a physical illness and not directly the mental disorder itself. *She has capacity and treatment cannot be given against her wishes regardless of the consequences* - A patient's right to refuse treatment is absolute only if they have **full capacity** for that specific decision at that time. - Her **severe depression** and expressed wish to die, despite understanding the consequences, indicate that her ability to **weigh information** is impaired by her mental illness, meaning she does not meet the legal criteria for capacity in this context.
Question 245: A 68-year-old man with advanced metastatic lung cancer is admitted with increasing breathlessness and pain. He has capacity and clearly states he does not want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if his heart stops. His wife strongly disagrees and insists that everything must be done to keep him alive. What is the most appropriate course of action regarding the Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decision?
- A. Defer the DNACPR decision until the wife agrees with her husband's wishes
- B. Complete a DNACPR form based on the patient's wishes as he has capacity (Correct Answer)
- C. Arrange a best interests meeting with the multidisciplinary team and family
- D. Complete a DNACPR form based on clinical futility without discussing further with the patient
- E. Refer the case to the hospital ethics committee for a decision
Explanation: ***Complete a DNACPR form based on the patient's wishes as he has capacity***- In a patient with **mental capacity**, the principle of **autonomy** means their competent refusal of treatment, including CPR, is legally binding and paramount.- While family members should be supported, they have **no legal authority** to override the decision of a capacitous patient regarding their own medical care.*Defer the DNACPR decision until the wife agrees with her husband's wishes*- Delaying the decision compromises the patient's right to **self-determination** and risks performing an unwanted, invasive procedure if he arrests in the interim.- Consensus from relatives is preferred but **not mandatory** when the patient has clearly expressed their own valid wishes.*Arrange a best interests meeting with the multidisciplinary team and family*- **Best interests** meetings are only applicable under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005** when a patient lacks the capacity to make their own decisions.- Since the patient maintains capacity, he is the sole decision-maker, and an MDT meeting cannot legally override his **autonomous refusal**.*Complete a DNACPR form based on clinical futility without discussing further with the patient*- While CPR may be medically futile in metastatic cancer, guidelines like **Tracey v Cambridge University Hospitals** mandate that patients must be involved in **DNACPR discussions**.- Sidestepping the patient's expressed wishes to focus solely on **clinical futility** ignores his active right to refuse treatment.*Refer the case to the hospital ethics committee for a decision*- Referral is unnecessary as there is no legal or ethical ambiguity here; the patient's **competent refusal** of care is a settled matter of law.- An ethics committee is usually reserved for complex cases where there is doubt about **capacity** or a lack of consensus in the patient's best interests.
Practice by Chapter
Want unlimited practice?
Get full access to all questions, explanations, and performance tracking.
Start For Free