Skip to main content
MedVellum
QuestionsVideosPricing

MedVellum

Fellowship exam preparation across every specialty: source-verified topics, questions in every format, and videos.

Product

  • Specialties
  • Questions
  • Videos
  • Exam tools
  • Pricing

Verification & policy

  • Verified register
  • Editorial policy
  • Privacy
  • Terms

Account

  • Sign in
  • Create account
  • Dashboard
  • Account & billing

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

llms.txtPsychiatry LLM catalogSitemap

Paeds SAQsprofessional-practice-and-evidence

Paeds SAQs · professional-practice-and-evidence

Refusal of treatment and disagreement over care — formative SAQs

Formative SAQs on navigating a parental refusal of recommended treatment, managing a blood-product refusal, and escalating an entrenched goals-of-care dispute to ethics consultation and the courts.

20 marks30 min3 min readVerification in progress

Target exams

RACP General PaediatricsMRCPCH ClinicalABP General Pediatrics
On this page
Study tools

Target exams

RACP General PaediatricsMRCPCH ClinicalABP General Pediatrics
Prompt
Refusal of treatment and disagreement over care

SAQ 1 (10 marks)

A 6-year-old child is bleeding after surgery and requires a blood transfusion to survive. The parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses, refuse blood products on religious grounds. The child is deteriorating but still conscious. [3] [4]

  1. State the principle that sets the threshold for overriding this parental refusal, and explain why the clinician does not override it alone. (3) [1]
  2. Outline your immediate and stepwise management of the child and the family. (5) [3] [4]
  3. Describe how you would document the encounter and preserve the therapeutic relationship. (2) [1]

Model answer

The harm principle sets the threshold: clinicians respect parental authority until the refusal risks serious and likely harm to the child that is not outweighed by respecting the decision. Once the immediate emergency has passed, the authority to override an ongoing settled refusal belongs to the court, not the clinician acting alone, because the court is the legitimate arbiter of an irreconcilable dispute and protects both the child and the clinician. [1]

Immediate management is to stabilise the bleeding and anaemic child by treating in the child's best interests under the emergency doctrine or safeguarding authority. Continue respectful engagement with the family throughout, explain the clinical need honestly, and explore whether blood-conserving strategies can bridge safely. Escalate to senior clinicians and the ethics service, and seek a court determination for the ongoing dispute; judicial review consistently supports transfusion of a child against parental refusal where life is at stake. [3] [4]

Document contemporaneously and factually: what was offered, the risks explained, the parents' reasons, the child's state, the emergency authority invoked, and the escalation. Continue to offer care and keep the door open, because a child whose family has been alienated still needs a team — preserving the relationship is part of the management. [1]

Paediatrics Fellowship Pro

Continue reading

You have read the opening of this SAQ. The complete unit — every section and its primary-source references — is part of the Paediatrics Fellowship fellowship library.

Sign in to continueSee pricing
References6ShowHide
  1. [1]Diekema DS Parental refusals of medical treatment: the harm principle as threshold for state intervention Theor Med Bioeth, 2004.PMID 15637945
  2. [2]Diekema DS Revisiting the best interest standard: uses and misuses J Clin Ethics, 2011.PMID 21837884
  3. [3]Conti A Blood Transfusion in Children: The Refusal of Jehovah's Witness Parents' Open Med (Wars), 2018.PMID 29666843
  4. [4]Wheeler R Children of Jehovah's witnesses: a review of judicial responses to the refusal of blood transfusion Arch Dis Child, 2026.PMID 41443962
  5. [5]Schneiderman LJ Effect of ethics consultations on nonbeneficial life-sustaining treatments in the intensive care setting: a randomized controlled trial JAMA, 2003.PMID 12952998
  6. [6]Morrison W Pediatricians' Experience with Clinical Ethics Consultation: A National Survey J Pediatr, 2015.PMID 26210945
Paediatrics Fellowship Pro

$29/ monthor $279 / year

The complete Paediatrics Fellowship library, every exam format, one subscription.

  • Complete library for one chosen specialty
  • Timed MCQ mock exams and spaced review
  • Clinical cases & cross-table vivas
See pricingSign in
PreviousRecognition, reporting and analysis of adverse events — formative SAQsprofessional-practice-and-evidenceNextResearch ethics and assent in paediatric research — formative SAQsprofessional-practice-and-evidence