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

Phys Topicsgeneral-medicine

Phys · general-medicine

Medical Ethics, Capacity and Consent

Also known as medical ethics · bioethics · capacity assessment · decision-making capacity · competence · informed consent · advance care planning · advance directive · advance care directive · substitute decision-maker · best interests · confidentiality · mandatory reporting · Beauchamp and Childress · four principles · Mental Capacity Act 2005

Consultant-physician-depth guide to medical ethics, capacity and consent for FRACP DWE and DCE — the four principles of biomedical ethics (Beauchamp and Childress: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice), the functional two-stage test of capacity (understanding, retaining, using and weighing, communicating — Appelbaum 2007), the presumption of capacity and its decision-specific and time-specific nature, valid consent (informed, voluntary, capacitous), treatment without consent (emergency doctrine of necessity, mental health legislation, court order), advance care planning (binding advance refusals, values statements, ceilings of treatment, not-for-resuscitation orders that do not abandon), confidentiality and its limits (mandatory reporting, imminent risk, court order), and professional regulation (AHPRA, GMC, revalidation) — with the SPIKES protocol, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 five principles, and the ANZ guardianship and substitute decision-maker framework.

high6 referencesUpdated 26 July 20267 min readVerification in progress

Practise this topic

  • 8 MCQs
  • SAQ
  • Viva
  • Case

Your progress

Saved on this device.

Practise this topic

  • MCQ practice1
  • Short-answer question1
  • Viva station1
  • Clinical case1

Target exams

FRACP DWEFRACP DCEMRCP Part 1MRCP Part 2MRCP PACESABIM Internal Medicine

Red flags

  • A patient who refuses life-sustaining treatment must have capacity assessed for that specific decision — never assume incapacity simply because the refusal appears unwise, and never delay a formal, structured capacity assessment when the stakes are high
  • A capacitous refusal of life-saving treatment by an adult must be respected, even if the consequence is death — over-riding it is assault and battery, however well-intentioned
  • A fluctuating or impaired conscious state (delirium, intoxication, post-ictal, sedation) means capacity cannot be reliably assessed at that moment — defer non-urgent decisions, treat reversible causes, and reassess when capacity is restored
  • An advance refusal of treatment that is valid and applicable must be respected as if the now-incapacitous patient were refusing in real time — ignoring a valid advance directive is unlawful
  • Confidentiality is breached when there is a serious imminent risk to an identifiable third party — the duty to protect can override the duty of confidentiality, and the decision and its justification must be documented
  • Coercion, undue influence or a panic decision in the immediate aftermath of bad news invalidates voluntariness — consent obtained under these conditions is not valid consent
On this page
Study tools

Your progress

Saved on this device.

Practise this topic

  • MCQ practice1
  • Short-answer question1
  • Viva station1
  • Clinical case1

Target exams

FRACP DWEFRACP DCEMRCP Part 1MRCP Part 2MRCP PACESABIM Internal Medicine

Red flags

  • A patient who refuses life-sustaining treatment must have capacity assessed for that specific decision — never assume incapacity simply because the refusal appears unwise, and never delay a formal, structured capacity assessment when the stakes are high
  • A capacitous refusal of life-saving treatment by an adult must be respected, even if the consequence is death — over-riding it is assault and battery, however well-intentioned
  • A fluctuating or impaired conscious state (delirium, intoxication, post-ictal, sedation) means capacity cannot be reliably assessed at that moment — defer non-urgent decisions, treat reversible causes, and reassess when capacity is restored
  • An advance refusal of treatment that is valid and applicable must be respected as if the now-incapacitous patient were refusing in real time — ignoring a valid advance directive is unlawful
  • Confidentiality is breached when there is a serious imminent risk to an identifiable third party — the duty to protect can override the duty of confidentiality, and the decision and its justification must be documented
  • Coercion, undue influence or a panic decision in the immediate aftermath of bad news invalidates voluntariness — consent obtained under these conditions is not valid consent

Medical Ethics, Capacity and Consent

The one-line answer

Capacity is presumed in every adult, is decision-specific and time-specific, and is tested with the two-stage test followed by the four functional abilities. Valid consent rests on three pillars — capacity, informed disclosure and voluntariness. A doctor treats without consent only under necessity, statute or a court order. The rule that ends every viva: a capacitous adult may refuse any treatment, including life-saving treatment, and that refusal is respected.[1]

Meet the patient

A 68-year-old man with severe aortic stenosis and heart failure refuses the valve replacement that would prolong his life. He says he has "had enough." The registrar calls it a poor decision and wants you to declare him incapable. Your first job is not to book the theatre — it is to assess his capacity for this specific decision.[1]

If he has capacity, his refusal is autonomous and you respect it, however unwise. If he does not, you decide in his best interests with his substitute decision-maker. The whole exam hangs on that fork.[1]

Physician Medicine Pro

Continue reading

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

Sign in to continueSee pricing
References6ShowHide
  1. [1]Appelbaum PS Clinical practice. Assessment of patients' competence to consent to treatment N Engl J Med, 2007.PMID 17978292
  2. [2]Appelbaum PS, Grisso T Assessing patients' capacities to consent to treatment N Engl J Med, 1988.PMID 3200278
  3. [3]Grisso T, Appelbaum PS, Hill-Fotouhi C The MacCAT-T: a clinical tool to assess patients' capacities to make treatment decisions Psychiatr Serv, 1997.PMID 9355168
  4. [4]The SUPPORT Principal Investigators A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT). The SUPPORT Principal Investigators JAMA, 1995.PMID 7474243
  5. [5]Brinkman-Stoppelenburg A, Rietjens JA, van der Heide A The effects of advance care planning on end-of-life care: a systematic review Palliat Med, 2014.PMID 24651708
  6. [6]Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, Glober G, Beale EA, Kudelka AP SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer Oncologist, 2000.PMID 10964998

Test yourself

Practise what you just read

  • 8 MCQs
  • SAQ
  • Viva
  • Case
Physician Medicine Pro

$29/ monthor $279 / year

The complete Physician Medicine 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
PreviousMedical Ethics Autonomy Beneficence NON Maleficence Justicegeneral-medicineNextMulti-morbidity and Complex Care — Managing the Patient with Multiple Chronic Diseasesgeneral-medicine