Medical Ethics Exam Prep

means self-law: the ability to make rational decisions for yourself. In health care, it means a patient should generally be allowed to direct their own care if they are capable

is the ability to make a particular decision at a particular time. It is decision-specific and time-specific, not an all-or-nothing status.

consent to treatment that is: given by a capable person fully informed voluntary

occurs when health care providers or family members make a treatment decision for a capable patient, supposedly for that patient’s good. It contrasts with the patient-centred model, which prioritizes autonomy.

the moral obligation to contribute to the welfare of others. In health care, it includes promoting well-being, preventing harm, helping people in danger, and defending their rights.

is the moral obligation to refrain from causing harm. It is commonly summarized as “do no harm.”

in principlism, means ensuring fairness and equality in health care decision-making and treatment.

someone under 18 who nevertheless demonstrates enough capacity to take part in, and sometimes direct, their own health care decisions.

is the nondisclosure of health information by a practitioner on the grounds that telling the patient would be medically contraindicated or harmful. The course stresses that it must be used cautiously and constantly questioned.

means health care professionals must not reveal a patient’s medical information without the patient’s consent, unless disclosure is permitted within the circle of care or by a justified exception.

It sets out the rules for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal health information in Ontario.

the group of health care practitioners actively involved in treating a patient. Information can generally be shared within this circle for care purposes.

means treatment is pointless or wasted because it does not achieve the goals it is supposed to achieve. The slides emphasize that futility judgments are often value-laden, not purely scientific.

treatment that falls within accepted standards of medical practice and is acceptable to expert practitioners. The slides suggest using “inappropriate” rather than “futile” in many cases.

A slow code is the practice of purposely responding slowly to a patient in cardiac arrest when CPR is believed to be futile.

fallacy that incorrectly presents only two options when more options actually exist.

says a person should be able to choose what happens to their own body because they are autonomous. In the abortion unit, it supports pro-choice reasoning.

Don Marquis' argument says killing is wrong because it deprives a being of the valuable future it would otherwise have had. He uses this to argue that abortion is generally seriously immoral.

says death occurs when the entire brain, including both lower and higher brain functions, permanently stops functioning.

death occurs when the neocortex, or upper brain, permanently stops functioning. This view assumes mere biological existence without higher consciousness is no longer a meaningful life.

says an action with both a good and bad effect can be morally permissible if: the act itself is morally permissible the good effect cannot be achieved without the bad effect the bad effect is not intended the bad effect is proportionate to the good being sought

euthanasia is when a capable patient gives valid consent for a physician or nurse practitioner to actively end their life.

euthanasia is when life-sustaining treatment is withheld or withdrawn at the request of the patient or valid surrogate.

debate over whether actively causing death is morally different from allowing death by withholding or withdrawing treatment. In your slides, James Rachels argues there is no morally important difference between them.

Acronym with two forms: voluntary active euthanasia carried out by a physician or nurse practitioner, and assisted suicide through a self-administered lethal drug cocktail.

provider refuses to participate in MAID for example, because of moral or religious beliefs, often based on stewardship, incompatibility, or sanctity-of-life objections. The slides still say objecting providers should inform patients about all end-of-life options.

veracity and confidentiality. The ethical issue is whether physicians were justified in withholding the ____’s diagnosis and prognosis from him, and whether they were justified in disclosing it to the Prime Minister. The case pushes you to ask whether truth-telling is always required, or whether some form of therapeutic privilege or public-interest reasoning can justify nondisclosure. It also shows that confidentiality is not just about keeping secrets from strangers, but also about deciding whether powerful third parties should be told without consent.

autonomy versus beneficence. Scott Starson had bipolar disorder, which made the case raise the question: does having a serious mental illness automatically undermine decision-making capacity? Ethically, the case matters because it forces us to separate a decision that seems unwise from a decision that is actually incapable. The broader lesson is that capable patients do not lose autonomy just because clinicians think treatment would benefit them.

conflicts involving a minor’s preferences, family preferences, Indigenous holistic treatment, the Seven Sacred Teachings, and mistrust shaped by colonialism. Ethically, the cases challenge a simple “doctor knows best” approach and show how autonomy, beneficence, and cultural pluralism can collide. They also warn against a false dichotomy, where Western medicine and Indigenous healing are treated as if they are the only two mutually exclusive options.

expose the ethical significance of systemic bias and colonialism in health care. In your course, they are not just tragic stories but examples of how structural injustice affects care, trust, and outcomes. The ethical lesson is that medical ethics cannot stop at individual bedside choices; it must also account for racism, stereotyping, neglect, and institutional failure. These cases strengthen arguments grounded in justice, nonmaleficence, and care ethics.

central to the mature minor doctrine. Its importance is that it challenges the assumption that all minors should automatically be treated as incapable. Ethically, the case asks whether maturity and understanding should matter more than age alone when deciding who gets to consent to or refuse treatment. The case is especially useful for exam questions because it brings together autonomy, capacity, family authority, and state protection.

highlights that the definition of death is not as simple as it first appears. In the slides, the case is linked to debates between the cardiopulmonary view, the whole brain view, and the neocortical view of death. Ethically, the case forces you to ask whether death is only a biological event or whether consciousness and higher brain function matter morally. It shows that disputes about death are often also disputes about personhood, meaning, and what counts as a human life worth protecting.

This case is important because it focuses on whether health care providers can withdraw life-sustaining treatment without the consent of the patient or substitute decision-maker. The slides distinguish between withholding treatment and withdrawing treatment, and suggest that withdrawing is legally and ethically much more difficult when not consented to. The case therefore matters for questions about the limits of physician authority, the role of consent, and whether clinicians may unilaterally decide that continued treatment is inappropriate.

Ethically, her case is important because it supports the argument from autonomy and the argument from disability. The slides emphasize that her case helps explain the move from a negative right not to be interfered with to a positive right of access to assisted dying. It also shows how a legal ban on assistance can discriminate against people who physically cannot end their own lives without help.

decisive legal and ethical shift toward MAID in Canada. The case overturned the earlier prohibition and recognized that capable adults suffering intolerably and enduringly could claim access to physician-assisted dying. Ethically, the case matters because it shows how autonomy, beneficence, and justice came to outweigh blanket prohibition. It also becomes the basis for later debates in your course about mature minors, psychiatric illness, and advance directives in MAID.

breaching confidentiality. In your slides, it appears under qualified confidentiality and the duty to warn. The ethical importance of the case is that it shows confidentiality is not absolute: when a serious threat to another person exists, protecting others may override keeping a patient’s confidence. The case is useful because it frames confidentiality as a prima facie duty, not an untouchable absolute.

confidentiality can sometimes be ethically and legally breached to prevent serious harm. In the course, it reinforces the point that professionals have obligations not only to the patient but sometimes also to identifiable third parties or the public. It is a strong example of the tension between professional confidentiality and public safety.