Medical ethics: duty to warn: practice question

A Forensic Medicine question in the style of the NEET PG paper. Answer it first, then read why the right option is right and why each of the others is wrong.

Try it

Forensic Medicine · Medical ethics: duty to warn

Sample item

A psychiatrist's patient says he plans to kill a named neighbour and has acquired a weapon. After assessing the risk as serious, what is the most appropriate step?

ABreach confidentiality to warn the intended victim and inform the policeBMaintain strict confidentiality and wait for the next visitCOnly document the statement in the notesDDischarge the patient from care and take no further steps

Original practice item, not a recalled exam question. Nothing here is recorded.

The answer and the reasoning

A. Breach confidentiality to warn the intended victim and inform the police

Confidentiality is not absolute. When there is a serious and imminent risk to an identifiable person, the duty to protect (the Tarasoff principle) overrides it, and disclosure should be limited to what is needed to protect the person. The assessment and action should be documented.

Option by option

A. Breach confidentiality to warn the intended victim and inform the police (correct)
Correct. A serious threat to an identifiable person justifies limited disclosure.
B. Maintain strict confidentiality and wait for the next visit
Waiting leaves an identifiable person at risk.
C. Only document the statement in the notes
Documentation alone does not protect the potential victim.
D. Discharge the patient from care and take no further steps
Discharge abandons the patient and does not remove the danger.

Source note: Original NextPrep sample item — pending expert review. This item is original practice material awaiting independent expert review, so confirm important facts in a standard textbook.

Questions about this Forensic Medicine question

What is the answer to this Forensic Medicine question?

The best answer is A, Breach confidentiality to warn the intended victim and inform the police. Confidentiality is not absolute.

Why is "Maintain strict confidentiality and wait for the next visit" not the answer?

Waiting leaves an identifiable person at risk.

Why is "Only document the statement in the notes" not the answer?

Documentation alone does not protect the potential victim.

Why is "Discharge the patient from care and take no further steps" not the answer?

Discharge abandons the patient and does not remove the danger.

What concept does this question test?

It tests Medical ethics: duty to warn in Forensic Medicine. When there is a serious and imminent risk to an identifiable person, the duty to protect (the Tarasoff principle) overrides it, and disclosure should be limited to what is needed to protect the person. The assessment and action should be documented.

How hard is this question?

We tag it as a multi-step question: it asks you to combine more than one idea. The tag is our own editorial judgement, not an official difficulty rating, so read the reason for every option, not only the answer.

How should I study Medical ethics: duty to warn?

Learn postmortem changes with their timelines, and toxicology as poison, sign, test and antidote. Then use the flashcards and the other Forensic Medicine questions on this site to test what stuck.

Is this a real NEET PG question?

No. It is an original practice item (editorial status: sample, version 1). NextPrep does not publish recalled or leaked questions, and independent faculty review of this item has not been completed yet, so confirm important facts in a standard textbook.