An endangered tribe has developed a severe skeletal deformity. A university research has identified a mineral supplement as a possible remedy, though clinical trials are yet to be conducted. Should the District Magistrate (DM) use this research on the tribe? Discuss from the perspective of medical and administrative ethics.
What the examiner wants
Evaluate whether a DM may expose a vulnerable endangered tribe to an unproven intervention when potential benefit conflicts with safety, consent and public duty.
Demand-wise check
- 1Medical ethics: beneficence, non-maleficence, informed consent, evidence and research ethics≈30 words
- 2Administrative ethics: precaution, accountability and protection of vulnerable populations≈30 words
- 3Risk of exploitation because the community is small, vulnerable and lacks alternatives≈30 words
- 4Ethical process: expert/ethics review, voluntary consent, monitored research or safer alternatives—not unilateral experimentation≈30 words
Open in about 20 words and close in about 20.
Answer plan
Where marks usually go
- Treating the DM as competent to authorize clinical experimentation alone
- Using vulnerability as a reason to relax safety/consent standards
Value addition
- Beneficence–nonmaleficence–autonomy–justice square
→ Draw it in the body, next to the point it supports.
Official source anchors
These are authoritative sources selected for this exact PYQ. Where a card is an official-domain anchor rather than a fact-level citation, verify the precise provision, definition or data point on the linked source before using it.
Next: plan for one minute, write it in 7 minutes, then get it checked.