Community Medicine — Medical Ethics, NMC MBBS licence examination syllabus (Nepal Medical Council).
Ethics, consent and confidentiality
The questions with no investigation to order and no drug to prescribe.
Every other chapter in this syllabus ends with something to do — a test to send, a drug to give, an operation to arrange. This one does not. Ethical problems are the ones where everybody involved already knows the medical facts and the difficulty is what ought to happen next. They are also, in practice, the situations that keep doctors awake and that generate most complaints.
The good news for revision is that ethical reasoning has a structure. Most questions turn on a small number of recurring ideas: what makes consent valid, what capacity actually means, when confidentiality may be broken, and whose wishes take priority when a family and a patient disagree. Learn those four and most scenarios become tractable.
🩺 Where this lives: The single most common ethical error in practice is treating consent as a signature rather than a conversation. A form signed by a frightened patient who was not told the alternatives, or who did not understand the language it was explained in, documents nothing of value — and a patient who later says "nobody told me this could happen" is usually telling the truth. Consent is the discussion; the form is only the record that it occurred.
💡 A note on law. This chapter deliberately gives no legal ages, no statutory capacity tests, no named legislation and no jurisdiction-specific rules about who may decide for an adult who lacks capacity. Those are matters of Nepali law and of NMC regulation, they differ between countries, and they change. Reproducing a threshold remembered from a foreign textbook would be wrong twice over. What is taught here is the reasoning, which is stable — take the legal thresholds from the NMC code of ethics and current Nepali law.
The four principles
The four principles are often mistaken for a ranking, as though autonomy always beats beneficence. They are not. They are a checklist for thinking, and genuine dilemmas exist precisely because the principles conflict — a patient refusing a life-saving transfusion sets autonomy directly against beneficence. In an examination, naming the conflict explicitly is most of the answer, and a response that identifies which principles are in tension will nearly always outscore one that simply asserts a conclusion.
Valid consent
THE THREE REQUIREMENTS, AND HOW EACH FAILS
INFORMED — the patient must be told the nature of the
procedure, the benefits, the MATERIAL RISKS, the
ALTERNATIVES, and what happens if nothing is done.
"Material" means what THIS patient would consider
significant, not merely what is statistically common.
FAILS WHEN: explained in a language they do not speak,
in technical terms, or with alternatives omitted.
VOLUNTARY — free from coercion or undue influence, whether
from clinicians, employers or family.
FAILS WHEN: a relative answers for the patient, or the
patient is pressured on a trolley outside theatre.
CAPACITY — the patient can understand, retain, weigh and
communicate.
FAILS WHEN: capacity is assumed from the diagnosis, or
inferred from the fact that the answer was "no".
WHAT CONSENT IS NOT:
NOT a signature. The form is evidence, not consent.
NOT permanent — it may be withdrawn at any time,
including during a procedure.
NOT transferable — consent for one procedure does not
authorise a different one.
IN A TRUE EMERGENCY, where the patient cannot consent and
delay would cause serious harm, necessary treatment may be
given to save life or prevent serious deterioration —
limited to what is immediately necessary. A KNOWN, VALID
REFUSAL made when the patient had capacity still stands.
Capacity
💡 Exam angle: the highest-yield point in this whole chapter is that an unwise decision is not evidence of incapacity. Examiners construct scenarios where a patient with clear capacity refuses something obviously beneficial, and the tempting wrong answer is to declare them incapable and treat anyway. Capacity concerns the process of deciding, not the wisdom of the conclusion. Two further points: capacity is presumed until shown otherwise, and it is decision-specific — someone may lack capacity for a complex operation yet retain it for simpler choices.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality is strong but not absolute, and the everyday test is not the dramatic public-interest case — it is the relative in the corridor. A concerned family member asking about a competent adult patient has no automatic right to the information, however well-intentioned. The correct move is to ask the patient what they would like shared and with whom, and to record it. Where disclosure is justified, the standard is the same each time: the minimum necessary information, to the right person, with the reason recorded — and, where possible, tell the patient first.
Truth, bad news and mistakes
THREE SITUATIONS WORTH REHEARSING
1. "DOCTOR, DON'T TELL HIM IT'S CANCER."
Common, and usually motivated by love. But the
information belongs to the PATIENT, not the family.
The way through is not to overrule the family but to
ask the patient what THEY want to know — and to respect
it if they genuinely prefer not to be told, or ask that
a relative be told instead. That is autonomy too.
Explore the family's fear as well; it is usually that
the news will destroy hope.
2. BREAKING BAD NEWS.
Private setting, no interruptions. Find out what they
already understand. Give a warning shot. Deliver it in
small pieces and PLAIN words — then STOP TALKING and
allow silence. Check what they have understood. Agree a
concrete next step so they leave with something to hold.
3. WHEN YOU HAVE MADE A MISTAKE.
Tell the patient promptly and honestly, apologise, and
explain what will be done about it. Concealment turns a
clinical error into a breach of trust and compounds the
harm. Report it so the system can be improved — most
serious errors have system causes, and a culture that
punishes disclosure produces silence rather than safety.
A NOTE ON RESOURCES: justice matters acutely where
resources are scarce. Decisions about who receives a
limited resource should rest on clinical need and expected
benefit, applied consistently — not on ability to pay,
social status, caste or connections. Treat like cases
alike, and be able to explain the basis of the decision.
Clinical reasoning: four scenarios
🔍 Case 1 — a refusal you disagree with
ScenarioA man with capacity refuses an operation that would very probably save his life. He understands the explanation and can repeat the consequences accurately. The team considers declaring him incapable so that surgery can proceed.
TrapInferring incapacity from the answer.
ReasoningHe understands, retains, weighs and communicates — he has capacity. An unwise decision is not evidence of incapacity, and treating him against a capacitous refusal would be an assault on his autonomy.
AnswerRespect the refusal. Explore his reasons — they often reveal a fixable misunderstanding or fear — ensure he knows the door remains open, offer alternatives and document the discussion carefully.
🔍 Case 2 — the son in the corridor
ScenarioThe adult son of a competent elderly patient asks for her test results, explaining that he manages her affairs and that she would want him told.
Key questionWhat does the patient want?
ReasoningThe information belongs to the patient. A relative's involvement, however genuine, does not confer a right of access while she has capacity and can be asked directly.
AnswerDo not disclose without her agreement. Ask her what she would like shared and with whom, record her wishes, and involve the family with her consent — which most patients readily give.
🔍 Case 3 — a form signed in a language she does not read
ScenarioA woman is due for surgery. The consent form is signed. She speaks a different language from the consenting clinician, no interpreter was used, and a relative translated briefly on the ward.
ProblemThe signature exists; the consent may not.
ReasoningConsent must be informed, and information given in a language the patient does not understand does not inform. Using a relative as interpreter also risks filtering, and compromises voluntariness where the relative has views of their own.
AnswerRepeat the consent discussion with a proper interpreter, covering the procedure, material risks, alternatives and the option of no treatment, and document that this was done.
🔍 Case 4 — an error nobody noticed
ScenarioA drug error causes a patient temporary harm from which she recovers fully. She is unaware anything happened. A colleague suggests saying nothing, since no lasting damage was done and disclosure would only frighten her.
Key pointRecovery does not remove the duty to be honest.
ReasoningPatients are entitled to know what happened to them. Concealment converts a clinical error into a breach of trust, and is far more damaging if discovered later.
AnswerTell her promptly and honestly, apologise, explain what is being done to prevent recurrence, and report the incident so the underlying system problem can be addressed.
Commonly confused
Confusion
The distinction
Why it matters
Signed form vs valid consent
The form is evidence of a conversation
A signature without understanding is worthless.
Unwise decision vs incapacity
Capacity concerns process, not conclusion
The most examined point in the chapter.
Capacity as a label vs decision-specific
It varies by decision and over time
Reassess rather than labelling a person.
Family's wishes vs patient's wishes
The information belongs to the patient
Relatives have no automatic right of access.
Withholding truth vs respecting a choice not to know
Ask the patient what they want
Both extremes can breach autonomy.
Confidentiality as absolute vs limited
Serious risk of harm and legal duties are exceptions
Disclose the minimum, and record why.
Emergency treatment vs a known refusal
A valid prior refusal still stands
Emergency powers are not unlimited.
Concealing vs disclosing an error
Honesty is owed even after full recovery
Concealment compounds the harm.
Rapid revision
MUST-KNOW FACTS
1. The four principles: AUTONOMY, BENEFICENCE, NON-MALEFICENCE, JUSTICE.
2. They are a checklist for thinking, NOT a ranking.
3. Dilemmas exist because principles CONFLICT — name the conflict.
4. Valid consent must be INFORMED, VOLUNTARY, and given with CAPACITY.
5. Informed means risks, benefits, ALTERNATIVES and doing nothing.
6. Material risk means what THIS patient would consider significant.
7. A SIGNED FORM IS EVIDENCE OF CONSENT, NOT CONSENT ITSELF.
8. Consent may be WITHDRAWN at any time.
9. Consent for one procedure does not authorise another.
10. Information must be given in a language the patient understands.
11. Use a proper INTERPRETER, not a relative.
12. Capacity: UNDERSTAND, RETAIN, WEIGH, COMMUNICATE.
13. AN UNWISE DECISION IS NOT EVIDENCE OF INCAPACITY.
14. Capacity is PRESUMED until shown otherwise.
15. Capacity is DECISION-SPECIFIC and may fluctuate.
16. Maximise capacity first — treat delirium, use an interpreter, choose the moment.
17. In an emergency, necessary life-saving treatment may be given.
18. A valid prior refusal made with capacity still stands.
19. Confidentiality is the default, including with relatives.
20. Disclosure may be justified: consent, legal duty, serious risk of harm.
21. Notifiable disease reporting is a legal exception.
22. Disclose the MINIMUM NECESSARY, to the right person, and record why.
23. Where possible, tell the patient before disclosing.
24. The family's wish to withhold a diagnosis does not override the patient.
25. Ask the PATIENT what they want to know.
26. A patient may choose NOT to be told — that is autonomy too.
27. Breaking bad news: private, warn, plain words, silence, check understanding.
28. After an error: tell promptly, apologise, explain, report.
29. Concealing an error compounds the harm and destroys trust.
30. Justice: allocate by clinical need and benefit, applied consistently.
31. Take legal ages and statutory rules from the NMC code and Nepali law.
💡 Exam angle: ethics questions reward structure over conviction. Identify the principles in tension, establish whether the patient has capacity, ask what the patient themselves wants, and consider whether any exception to confidentiality genuinely applies. An answer that works through those four steps will handle almost any scenario — including ones you have never seen.
Syllabus points
The four principles and why they conflict
The three requirements for valid consent
Why a signed form is not consent
Material risk and the alternatives
Interpreters and informed consent
Assessing capacity
Why an unwise decision is not incapacity
Emergency treatment and prior refusals
Confidentiality and its limits
The relative asking for information
When the family asks you not to tell
Breaking bad news
Honesty after a medical error
Create a free account to tick topics off, take notes as you read, watch the video lessons and get a day-by-day study plan built around your exam date.