Question

Mr. Samay was severely hurt while working in his factory and fell unconscious. He was rushed to a hospital by his fellow workers. In the hospital (at emergency/casualty ward) the doctors opined that he should be operated immediately. While conducting preliminary examinations, he was found to be HIV positive. The doctors are in a dilemma regarding what should they do first:

• A. Doctors should operate first
• B. Doctors should inform his family members
• C. Doctors should inform his employers
• D. Doctors should not inform anyone because it would violate patient's right of privacy

Hint:

The stem asks what comes first, not what is eventually done. Rank the interests and ask which one cannot survive a delay.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The word doing the work in this stem is "first". Nobody is asking whether the family should ever be told or whether HIV status is confidential. The question is about sequence, and sequence questions are decided by ranking the interests at stake. Mr. Samay is unconscious, he needs an urgent operation, and his HIV status has just surfaced. Line up the interests: his life, his privacy, his family's wish to know, and his employer's curiosity. Then ask which one, if ignored for even an hour, cannot be repaired.

1. Doctors should operate first: This is the answer. The right to life under Article 21 sits above every other right, because a dead patient has no privacy to protect and no family to inform. Parmanand Katara held that a doctor's duty to save a life in an emergency comes before procedural formalities. The missing consent is no barrier, since the law allows treatment in good faith for the benefit of someone who cannot consent and where delay would be dangerous. The HIV finding changes the gloves and precautions in the theatre, not the decision to operate.
2. Doctors should inform his family members: This is a step that will happen, but it cannot come first. Tracking down relatives of a man carried in from a factory floor takes time, and the surgeon does not have that time. Putting a phone call ahead of a life-saving operation gets the order exactly backwards.
3. Doctors should inform his employers: This one is not merely out of order, it is wrong at any stage. An employer has no medical interest in the diagnosis and no right to it. Passing on an HIV status to a workplace invites the loss of a job and a life of stigma, and it does nothing for the patient's treatment.
4. Doctors should not inform anyone because it would violate patient's right of privacy: This talks only about disclosure and never touches the operation, so it does not answer the question asked. It also overstates the rule. Confidentiality is strong but not absolute, and in Mr. X v. Hospital Z the court accepted that disclosure to a person genuinely at risk of infection can be justified.

So option (A) is the answer, on the simple ground that saving the life comes first and everything else is arranged afterwards.

Let's summarize:

• The right to life under Article 21 outranks the competing interests in an emergency.
• Consent can be dispensed with where the patient is unconscious and delay is dangerous.
• An HIV positive result governs the precautions taken, never whether urgent surgery happens.
• An employer has no claim to a patient's diagnosis.

Since the operation is what cannot wait, the doctors should operate first and option (A) is correct.