Ethics & Law — MCQs
On this page
A 51-year-old woman with widely metastatic ovarian cancer is dying in hospital. She has been unconscious for 24 hours. Her husband, who holds Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare, requests that all medications including subcutaneous morphine and midazolam be stopped as he believes she 'needs to wake up to say goodbye to the children.' What is the most appropriate response?
A 78-year-old woman with severe dementia (MMSE 8/30) is admitted from a care home with pneumonia. She requires intravenous antibiotics but repeatedly pulls out cannulas and becomes distressed during attempts at insertion. She lacks capacity. Her daughter, who is not her attorney, insists that restraint must not be used under any circumstances. What is the most appropriate action?
Which of the following situations would legally permit disclosure of confidential patient information without consent in the UK?
A 44-year-old man with metastatic colorectal cancer has been receiving palliative chemotherapy. He develops severe pain from liver metastases. His oncologist prescribes morphine but the patient refuses, stating he is 'opposed to strong painkillers' due to concerns about addiction. Despite explanation, he continues to refuse. He clearly has capacity. What is the most appropriate management?
Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which of the following is NOT one of the five statutory principles?
A 63-year-old man with end-stage heart failure is admitted with severe pulmonary edema. He has an Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT) documented two years ago refusing 'ventilation and intensive care treatment.' He now requires non-invasive ventilation (NIV). He is confused and hypoxic and lacks capacity. What factors must be considered to determine if the ADRT applies to this situation?
A 15-year-old girl attends the sexual health clinic requesting insertion of a contraceptive implant. She does not want her parents informed. She understands the procedure, risks, benefits, and alternatives. Under the Fraser guidelines (Gillick competence), which additional criterion must be met before proceeding without parental involvement?
A 26-year-old woman with a history of emotionally unstable personality disorder takes an overdose of 40 paracetamol tablets. She attends the emergency department 2 hours later but refuses blood tests and treatment with acetylcysteine. She has capacity for this decision. What is the most appropriate immediate management?
A 41-year-old woman with terminal metastatic breast cancer is receiving end-of-life care at home. She has severe pain requiring increasing doses of morphine. The district nurse is concerned that the current dose of morphine (120mg oral morphine daily) may hasten death. The patient has capacity and requests adequate pain relief. What ethical principle best supports continuing appropriate analgesia?
Which of the following scenarios would constitute valid consent for a surgical procedure under UK law?
Ethics & Law UK Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Question 81: A 51-year-old woman with widely metastatic ovarian cancer is dying in hospital. She has been unconscious for 24 hours. Her husband, who holds Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare, requests that all medications including subcutaneous morphine and midazolam be stopped as he believes she 'needs to wake up to say goodbye to the children.' What is the most appropriate response?
- A. Stop the medications as requested by the attorney who has legal authority
- B. Explain that stopping symptom control would not be in her best interests and is not legally required (Correct Answer)
- C. Reduce the doses of morphine and midazolam to try to lighten sedation
- D. Continue current medication but document that this is against the attorney's wishes
- E. Arrange an urgent Court of Protection application to override the attorney's decision
Explanation: ***Explain that stopping symptom control would not be in her best interests and is not legally required***- A **Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)** must always act in the patient's **best interests**; they cannot demand actions that are clinically harmful or would cause suffering.- Providing **palliative care** including **symptom relief** (morphine for pain/dyspnea, midazolam for agitation/anxiety) is a core part of end-of-life care and is not legally overridden by an LPA if it conflicts with best interests.*Stop the medications as requested by the attorney who has legal authority*- While an LPA can make decisions about refusing life-sustaining treatment, they cannot compel clinicians to withdraw essential **symptom-controlling medications** if doing so would cause harm or distress.- Stopping **morphine and midazolam** in a dying patient would likely lead to uncontrolled pain, breathlessness, or agitation, which goes against the principle of **non-maleficence**.*Reduce the doses of morphine and midazolam to try to lighten sedation*- Reducing doses is unlikely to restore consciousness in a patient with **widely metastatic cancer** who has been unconscious for 24 hours as part of the **natural dying process**.- This approach prioritizes an unrealistic family expectation over the patient's need for continued **comfort and dignity** at the end of life.*Continue current medication but document that this is against the attorney's wishes*- Simply documenting the disagreement without a comprehensive **discussion** with the husband risks breaking **trust** and failing to address his underlying concerns or grief.- Effective communication and **shared decision-making** (where appropriate, by explaining best interests) are crucial in end-of-life care, especially when an LPA is involved.*Arrange an urgent Court of Protection application to override the attorney's decision*- A **Court of Protection** application is a last resort, usually pursued when all attempts at **mediation and communication** have failed, and there is a significant dispute over the patient's **best interests**.- In this scenario, a thorough explanation and sensitive discussion are the first and most appropriate steps, making an immediate court application premature.
Question 82: A 78-year-old woman with severe dementia (MMSE 8/30) is admitted from a care home with pneumonia. She requires intravenous antibiotics but repeatedly pulls out cannulas and becomes distressed during attempts at insertion. She lacks capacity. Her daughter, who is not her attorney, insists that restraint must not be used under any circumstances. What is the most appropriate action?
- A. Use gentle physical restraint to insert the cannula as this is necessary treatment in her best interests (Correct Answer)
- B. Respect the daughter's wishes and avoid restraint, switching to oral antibiotics if possible
- C. Apply for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorization before any restraint is used
- D. Use sedation to facilitate cannula insertion to avoid the need for physical restraint
- E. Seek a court order to authorize restraint for medical treatment
Explanation: ***Use gentle physical restraint to insert the cannula as this is necessary treatment in her best interests*** - Under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA)**, healthcare professionals can use **proportionate restraint** if it is necessary to provide life-saving treatment and prevent harm to a patient who lacks capacity. - While the daughter's views must be considered, she does not have **Lasting Power of Attorney** (LPA) for health and welfare, meaning the clinical team must ultimately decide what is in the patient's **best interests**. *Respect the daughter's wishes and avoid restraint, switching to oral antibiotics if possible* - Family members without **legal proxy** status cannot veto necessary, life-saving medical treatment if the patient lacks capacity and the treatment is in their best interests. - Switching to **oral antibiotics** may be clinically inappropriate for severe pneumonia, potentially compromising the patient's recovery and safety. *Apply for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorization before any restraint is used* - **Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)** is intended for situations where a person is under continuous supervision and control, and not free to leave, typically for longer-term care, not for **brief, procedure-specific restraint** during urgent medical treatment. - Seeking DoLS authorization for an urgent medical procedure would cause a **harmful delay** in the treatment of acute pneumonia. *Use sedation to facilitate cannula insertion to avoid the need for physical restraint* - **Chemical restraint** (sedation) often carries higher clinical risks than gentle physical restraint, especially in elderly patients with dementia who are acutely unwell. - Sedation still constitutes a form of **restraint** and does not bypass the ethical or legal requirements for a best-interests decision under the MCA. *Seek a court order to authorize restraint for medical treatment* - A **court order** is generally reserved for complex, non-urgent ethical dilemmas or serious disputes over treatment withdrawals, not for routine **acute medical management** where the MCA provides a clear framework. - **Sections 5 and 6** of the Mental Capacity Act provide legal protection for clinicians acting reasonably in the patient's best interests without needing court intervention for such procedures.
Question 83: Which of the following situations would legally permit disclosure of confidential patient information without consent in the UK?
- A. A journalist requests information about a local celebrity admitted to hospital
- B. A police officer requests blood test results for a driver involved in a road traffic collision to investigate potential drink-driving
- C. A public health investigation where there is an outbreak of a notifiable disease and contact tracing is required (Correct Answer)
- D. An insurance company requests medical records after the patient has submitted a claim
- E. A family member requests information about their elderly relative's diagnosis to help with care planning
Explanation: ***A public health investigation where there is an outbreak of a notifiable disease and contact tracing is required*** - Disclosure is legally permitted when **required by law**, such as reporting **notifiable diseases** to protect the wider public from serious harm. - Information for **contact tracing** and outbreak control can be shared without individual consent under specific **public health legislation**. *A journalist requests information about a local celebrity admitted to hospital* - **Patient confidentiality** applies to everyone regardless of their status, and **celebrity status** does not provide a legal basis for disclosure. - Sharing information with the media without explicit consent is a major breach of **GMC ethical guidance** and privacy laws. *A police officer requests blood test results for a driver involved in a road traffic collision to investigate potential drink-driving* - Police do not have an automatic right to medical records; disclosure usually requires **patient consent**, a **statutory requirement**, or a **court order**. - While there is a public interest in road safety, doctors must usually wait for a formal legal process under the **Road Traffic Act** rather than disclosing voluntarily. *An insurance company requests medical records after the patient has submitted a claim* - Insurance companies must obtain **explicit written consent** from the patient before accessing any medical records or reports. - Submitting an insurance claim does not grant the company **implied consent** to bypass confidentiality protocols. *A family member requests information about their elderly relative's diagnosis to help with care planning* - Information cannot be shared with family members without the patient's **expressed consent**, even if the intent is helpful. - If the patient **lacks capacity**, disclosure is only permitted if the clinician determines it is in the patient's **best interests**.
Question 84: A 44-year-old man with metastatic colorectal cancer has been receiving palliative chemotherapy. He develops severe pain from liver metastases. His oncologist prescribes morphine but the patient refuses, stating he is 'opposed to strong painkillers' due to concerns about addiction. Despite explanation, he continues to refuse. He clearly has capacity. What is the most appropriate management?
- A. Respect his decision and offer alternative pain management strategies (Correct Answer)
- B. Prescribe morphine and encourage nursing staff to administer it covertly in his food
- C. Arrange a psychiatric assessment to formally assess his capacity for this decision
- D. Contact his next of kin to provide consent for morphine administration
- E. Document that he lacks capacity for this decision due to the irrationality of refusing pain relief
Explanation: ***Respect his decision and offer alternative pain management strategies***- A patient with **capacity** has the absolute right to refuse treatment, even if the decision seems **unwise or irrational** to the healthcare team.- The clinician must honor **autonomy** by exploring alternative analgesics or non-pharmacological methods while continuing to provide supportive care and information.*Prescribe morphine and encourage nursing staff to administer it covertly in his food*- **Covert administration** of medication to a patient with capacity is illegal and constitutes **assault or battery**.- This action is a severe breach of **medical ethics** and professional standards, destroying the patient-doctor relationship.*Arrange a psychiatric assessment to formally assess his capacity for this decision*- The primary clinician is responsible for assessing capacity; a **psychiatric referral** is not indicated simply because a patient refuses treatment.- **Capacity** is assumed unless there is evidence of impairment in the mind or brain that prevents understanding, retaining, or weighing information.*Contact his next of kin to provide consent for morphine administration*- For an adult with **capacity**, the **next of kin** has no legal authority to override the patient's refusal or provide consent.- Attempting to bypass the patient's decision in this manner violates **confidentiality** and the legal principle of autonomy.*Document that he lacks capacity for this decision due to the irrationality of refusing pain relief*- Under the **Mental Capacity Act** (or similar legal frameworks), a person cannot be deemed to lack capacity solely because they make a decision that others view as **unwise**.- Documenting a lack of capacity without a clinical basis of **functional impairment** is unethical and legally indefensible.
Question 85: Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which of the following is NOT one of the five statutory principles?
- A. A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that they lack capacity
- B. A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help them have been taken without success
- C. A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because they make an unwise decision
- D. Any act done or decision made under the Act for a person who lacks capacity must prioritize family wishes (Correct Answer)
- E. Any act done or decision made under the Act for a person who lacks capacity must be in their best interests
Explanation: ***Any act done or decision made under the Act for a person who lacks capacity must prioritize family wishes*** - This statement is incorrect as a statutory principle; the **Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA)** mandates that decisions for a person lacking capacity must be made in their **best interests**. - While the MCA requires considering the views of family and carers, their wishes are one factor among many and do not automatically take precedence over the individual's **best interests**. *A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that they lack capacity* - This is the **First Principle** of the MCA, which establishes a fundamental presumption that every individual has the capacity to make their own decisions. - The burden of proof lies with the person asserting that an individual lacks capacity, ensuring rights are protected. *A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help them have been taken without success* - This is the **Second Principle**, emphasizing that all reasonable efforts must be made to support and enable an individual to make their own decision before concluding they lack capacity. - These steps might include providing information in an accessible format, using simple language, or choosing an appropriate environment. *A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because they make an unwise decision* - This is the **Third Principle** of the MCA, safeguarding an individual's right to make choices that others might consider unconventional, irrational, or even harmful. - Making an unwise decision is not, in itself, sufficient evidence to determine a lack of mental capacity. *Any act done or decision made under the Act for a person who lacks capacity must be in their best interests* - This is the **Fourth Principle** of the MCA, providing the guiding standard for all decisions made on behalf of an individual who lacks capacity. - A **best interests assessment** must be undertaken, considering all relevant circumstances including the person's past and present wishes, feelings, beliefs, and values.
Question 86: A 63-year-old man with end-stage heart failure is admitted with severe pulmonary edema. He has an Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT) documented two years ago refusing 'ventilation and intensive care treatment.' He now requires non-invasive ventilation (NIV). He is confused and hypoxic and lacks capacity. What factors must be considered to determine if the ADRT applies to this situation?
- A. Whether NIV could be considered 'ventilation' as specified in the ADRT and whether circumstances have changed since the ADRT was made (Correct Answer)
- B. Whether the patient's family agree with applying the ADRT in this situation
- C. Whether the ADRT has been reviewed within the last 12 months
- D. Whether the patient had capacity when the ADRT was made and whether it was witnessed by a healthcare professional
- E. Whether a second opinion from a consultant supports withholding NIV
Explanation: ***Whether NIV could be considered 'ventilation' as specified in the ADRT and whether circumstances have changed since the ADRT was made***- For an **Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT)** to be legally binding and applicable, it must clearly specify the **treatment being refused** and the **circumstances** under which the refusal applies.- It is crucial to ascertain if **Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV)** falls within the patient's intended definition of **'ventilation'** and if the current clinical scenario aligns with the situation envisioned when the ADRT was made, or if **unforeseen circumstances** invalidate it.*Whether the patient's family agree with applying the ADRT in this situation*- While family input can provide valuable insight into a patient's **values and wishes**, a legally valid and applicable **Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT)** cannot be overridden by the family's disagreement.- The **Mental Capacity Act 2005** emphasizes the patient's **autonomy** and previously expressed wishes when they had capacity, meaning family consent is not a prerequisite for respecting an ADRT.*Whether the ADRT has been reviewed within the last 12 months*- There is **no legal requirement** under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005** for an **Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT)** to be reviewed or re-signed within a specific timeframe (e.g., 12 months) for it to remain valid.- Although regular review is considered **good practice** to ensure it reflects current wishes, an older ADRT is still legally binding if it meets all other validity criteria.*Whether the patient had capacity when the ADRT was made and whether it was witnessed by a healthcare professional*- It is a **legal requirement** that the patient had **mental capacity** when they made the **Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT)**.- However, for an ADRT refusing **life-sustaining treatment**, it must be **in writing**, **signed by the patient**, and **witnessed**, but the witness does **not** need to be a **healthcare professional**; any competent adult can witness it.*Whether a second opinion from a consultant supports withholding NIV*- While seeking a **second opinion** can be beneficial in complex ethical or clinical dilemmas, it is **not a legal requirement** for an **Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT)** to be respected and applied.- If an ADRT is found to be **valid and applicable** to the current situation, healthcare professionals are legally bound to follow it, regardless of whether a second consultant agrees with the decision to withhold treatment.
Question 87: A 15-year-old girl attends the sexual health clinic requesting insertion of a contraceptive implant. She does not want her parents informed. She understands the procedure, risks, benefits, and alternatives. Under the Fraser guidelines (Gillick competence), which additional criterion must be met before proceeding without parental involvement?
- A. She must be assessed as likely to have sexual intercourse with or without contraception (Correct Answer)
- B. She must have previously used another form of contraception
- C. She must bring a partner to confirm the relationship
- D. Her GP must be informed even if parents are not
- E. A second clinician must independently assess her competence
Explanation: ***She must be assessed as likely to have sexual intercourse with or without contraception*** - This is a core criterion of the **Fraser guidelines** (Gillick competence), requiring the clinician to be satisfied that the young person will **begin or continue sexual intercourse** even if contraception is withheld. - This ensures that the provision of contraception is necessary to prevent potential harm from an **unwanted pregnancy** or **sexually transmitted infections**. *She must have previously used another form of contraception* - The **Fraser guidelines** do not mandate prior use of contraception; the focus is on the young person's current capacity and **future needs**. - Imposing such a requirement would create an **unnecessary barrier** to accessing appropriate healthcare for sexually active young people. *She must bring a partner to confirm the relationship* - **Gillick competence** assesses the young person's individual capacity to understand and make decisions, not the involvement or confirmation by a third party like a partner. - Requiring a partner to be present could breach **confidentiality** and act as a deterrent to seeking essential healthcare. *Her GP must be informed even if parents are not* - While encouraging the young person to inform their **GP** is generally considered good practice, it is not a mandatory legal requirement under the **Fraser guidelines**. - The primary concern is respecting the young person's **confidentiality** if they are deemed competent and there are no overriding **safeguarding concerns**. *A second clinician must independently assess her competence* - The determination of **Gillick competence** can be made by a single qualified clinician; a **second opinion** is not a legal prerequisite for treatment. - Although consulting a colleague may be good clinical practice in complex situations, it is not one of the specific **Fraser criteria** for proceeding.
Question 88: A 26-year-old woman with a history of emotionally unstable personality disorder takes an overdose of 40 paracetamol tablets. She attends the emergency department 2 hours later but refuses blood tests and treatment with acetylcysteine. She has capacity for this decision. What is the most appropriate immediate management?
- A. Accept her refusal and document that she has capacity and understands the consequences (Correct Answer)
- B. Treat under common law as this is a life-threatening emergency requiring immediate intervention
- C. Detain her under Section 5(2) of the Mental Health Act and treat the overdose
- D. Seek a court order to authorize treatment of the paracetamol overdose
- E. Contact her next of kin to provide consent for treatment on her behalf
Explanation: ***Accept her refusal and document that she has capacity and understands the consequences*** - A patient with **capacity** has the legal right to refuse life-saving treatment, and this **autonomy** must be respected regardless of the diagnosis of **emotionally unstable personality disorder**. - The clinician's duty is to ensure the patient is fully informed of the **risks and consequences** of refusal (such as liver failure and death) and to document the **capacity assessment** thoroughly. *Treat under common law as this is a life-threatening emergency requiring immediate intervention* - **Common law** or the **Mental Capacity Act** allows intervention only when a patient **lacks capacity** to make a specific treatment decision. - Because this patient has been explicitly assessed as having **capacity**, treating her against her will would constitute **battery** (unlawful touching). *Detain her under Section 5(2) of the Mental Health Act and treat the overdose* - **Section 5(2)** is a holding power for patients already admitted to a hospital ward and does not provide power to override a capacitous refusal of **physical health treatment**. - The **Mental Health Act** is used for the treatment of mental disorders; it cannot generally be used to compel treatment for a physical condition like **paracetamol overdose** in a person with capacity. *Seek a court order to authorize treatment of the paracetamol overdose* - A **court order** is typically reserved for cases where capacity is in doubt or where there is a complex dispute regarding a patient's **best interests**. - In an emergency where capacity is clearly present, the court will uphold the patient’s **right to self-determination**, making this an inappropriate delay. *Contact her next of kin to provide consent for treatment on her behalf* - In the UK, a **next of kin** has no legal authority to provide consent for a competent adult patient. - Seeking consent from others violates **patient confidentiality** and contradicts the legal principle that a capacitous adult is the sole decision-maker for their own care.
Question 89: A 41-year-old woman with terminal metastatic breast cancer is receiving end-of-life care at home. She has severe pain requiring increasing doses of morphine. The district nurse is concerned that the current dose of morphine (120mg oral morphine daily) may hasten death. The patient has capacity and requests adequate pain relief. What ethical principle best supports continuing appropriate analgesia?
- A. The doctrine of double effect - intending to relieve suffering while accepting the risk of hastening death (Correct Answer)
- B. Autonomy - the patient has requested pain relief so it must be provided regardless of consequences
- C. Non-maleficence - preventing the harm of untreated pain outweighs other considerations
- D. Justice - ensuring equitable access to pain relief for all dying patients
- E. Beneficence - maximizing overall benefit by ensuring the patient is comfortable
Explanation: ***The doctrine of double effect - intending to relieve suffering while accepting the risk of hastening death*** - This principle justifies an action that has two effects: a **positive intended effect** (pain relief) and a **negative foreseen but unintended effect** (hastening death). - It is ethically permissible provided the primary intention is to **alleviate suffering**, the good effect is not achieved via the bad effect, and the intervention is **proportionate** to the clinical need. *Autonomy - the patient has requested pain relief so it must be provided regardless of consequences* - While **autonomy** respects the patient's right to request treatment, it is not an absolute right to demand any intervention, especially if it violates the clinician's **duty of care**. - This principle focuses on **informed consent** and choice but does not specifically address the ethical conflict of life-shortening symptoms in palliative care. *Non-maleficence - preventing the harm of untreated pain outweighs other considerations* - **Non-maleficence** focuses on the duty to "do no harm," which in a strict sense might conflict with giving medication that could potentially **hasten death**. - It does not provide the specific legal and ethical framework required to justify the balance between **respiratory depression** and comfort that the double effect provides. *Justice - ensuring equitable access to pain relief for all dying patients* - **Justice** refers to the fair and **equitable distribution** of medical resources and treating similar cases in a similar manner. - This principle is irrelevant to the specific dilemma of **individual intent** versus the physiological consequences of high-dose morphine. *Beneficence - maximizing overall benefit by ensuring the patient is comfortable* - **Beneficence** requires clinicians to act in the **best interest** of the patient, but like non-maleficence, it lacks the technical nuance to address unintended side effects. - It supports the goal of comfort but does not specifically resolve the tension regarding the **timing of death** as a result of treatment.
Question 90: Which of the following scenarios would constitute valid consent for a surgical procedure under UK law?
- A. A patient signs a consent form after being told surgery is necessary but without being informed of alternative treatment options
- B. A patient with mild cognitive impairment (MMSE 24/30) consents after having the procedure explained using simple language and pictures (Correct Answer)
- C. A patient consents to surgery after being told about common risks but not about a rare serious complication that occurs in 1 in 10,000 cases
- D. A patient signs consent for knee arthroscopy without being told that the surgeon is a trainee who will perform the procedure under supervision
- E. A patient consents to surgery based on information provided by a nurse as the surgeon was unavailable to discuss the procedure
Explanation: ***A patient with mild cognitive impairment (MMSE 24/30) consents after having the procedure explained using simple language and pictures***- Under the **Mental Capacity Act 2005**, capacity is decision-specific and must be assumed unless proven otherwise; using simple language or pictures are **reasonable adjustments** to facilitate a valid decision.- A score of 24/30 on the **MMSE** reflects mild impairment, and the patient can still provide **informed consent** if they can understand, retain, weigh the information, and communicate their decision.*A patient signs a consent form after being told surgery is necessary but without being informed of alternative treatment options*- Following the **Montgomery v Lanarkshire** ruling, doctors must disclose **reasonable alternatives**, including the option of no treatment, for consent to be legally valid.- Consent is considered **invalid** if the patient is not provided with enough information to make an informed choice between different clinical pathways.*A patient consents to surgery after being told about common risks but not about a rare serious complication that occurs in 1 in 10,000 cases*- The **Montgomery principle** states that doctors must discuss any risk to which a **reasonable person** in the patient's position would likely attach significance.- If a risk is **serious** (e.g., permanent disability or death), it must be disclosed regardless of its rarity if it is material to the patient’s specific circumstances.*A patient signs consent for knee arthroscopy without being told that the surgeon is a trainee who will perform the procedure under supervision*- Patients have the right to know **who is performing the procedure**, and withholding the fact that a **trainee** is operating can be seen as a failure of the duty of candor.- Failure to disclose the operator's identity may invalidate consent if that information is deemed **material** to the patient's decision-making process.*A patient consents to surgery based on information provided by a nurse as the surgeon was unavailable to discuss the procedure*- While the task of consenting can be delegated, the person obtaining consent must be **suitably trained** and possess **sufficient knowledge** of the specific surgical procedure and its risks.- If the nurse lacks the specific technical expertise to answer detailed questions about the surgery, the consent may be deemed **legally insufficient**.
Practice by Chapter
Want unlimited practice?
Get full access to all questions, explanations, and performance tracking.
Start For Free