Skip to main content
MMedVellum
MCQsExamsAtlas
DashboardPricing
MMedVellum

The exam atlas that feels like a flagship product — evidence-graded topics and exam tools for MBBS and fellowship preparation. Built to scale to fifty specialties. Educational content only — not medical advice.

llms.txt·psychiatry LLM catalog · sitemap

Atlas

  • Specialty atlas
  • MBBS / Core medicine
  • Dermatology
  • ICU Fellowship (CICM)
  • Anaesthesia
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Psychiatry Fellowship

Study & account

  • MCQ practice
  • Practice alias
  • Exam tools
  • Dashboard
  • Pricing
  • Sign in

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

Clinical Atlas Prestige · Evidence-first

Psych VivasIntellectual disability — capacity and supported decision-making

Psych Vivas · Intellectual disability — capacity and supported decision-making

Capacity and supported decision-making in ID — structured clinical viva

Fellowship viva covering capacity in mild ID with psychosis, supported decision-making, guardianship principles, UNCRPD legal capacity, and mental health vs capacity pathways.

clinical
On this page & tools

Target exams

FRANZCPMRCPsychABPNMD-DNB

Target exams

FRANZCPMRCPsychABPNMD-DNB
Prompt
You are the psychiatry registrar. A 22-year-old woman with mild intellectual disability and autism is offered start of a second-generation antipsychotic for a first episode of psychosis with distressing auditory hallucinations. Her father says she cannot make any medical decisions and demands you 'put her under guardianship today'. She communicates verbally with short sentences, becomes anxious with long monologues, and says she wants the voices to stop but is worried the tablets will 'control my brain'. There is no guardianship order. Discuss decision-specific capacity, supports, four abilities, UNCRPD Article 12 principles, when substitute pathways are considered, the interface with mental health law for psychiatric treatment, and how you would respond to the father's request — without inventing statute section numbers.

Interpretation

Reveal interpretation

This is a rights-sensitive ID capacity viva combining mild ID, autism-related communication needs, and acute psychosis. The decision is starting antipsychotic medication now, not a global medical status.[1][4]

Supports first. Short chunks, plain language, visual side-effect sheets, quieter room, extra time, father as supporter only if she agrees — he must not answer for her. Anxiety and literal interpretation of "control my brain" need exploration (fear of coercion vs delusional belief vs misunderstanding).[4]

Four abilities. Test understanding of voices/illness and medicine purpose; appreciation that this applies to her; weighing benefits (reduce distress) vs risks (metabolic, EPS — principle-level, cite monitoring plans in clinical care); communication of a choice. Psychosis may impair appreciation; if so, document which ability fails after supports. Mild ID alone does not equal incapacity.[1][4]

UNCRPD / SDM. Legal capacity on equal basis; support to exercise it; will and preferences; safeguards. Clinically: maximise her decision-making; do not rush to plenary guardianship because a parent is distressed.[2][3]

Father's demand. Empathic validation of concern; educate that ID ≠ global incapacity; guardianship is least-restrictive, limited, reviewable, and not same-day clinician "placement under guardianship" by verbal request. If capacity absent for this decision after supports, consider lawful pathways under local consent/guardianship legislation and/or mental health legislation if statutory psychiatric criteria are met — separate tracks; no invented sections.[2][5]

Documentation. Decision named; supports; ability findings; pathway; review when psychosis settles for re-consent.[1][4]

Key points

Talk to her first

Autism and ID: short sentences, concrete examples, supporter secondary.

Psychosis may impair appreciation

Assess abilities after supports; treat and reassess rather than freeze a lifelong incapacity label.

Guardianship is not a same-day parental demand product

Least restrictive, limited domain, lawful process — principles only in exams without invented sections.
[1] [2] [4] [5]

References

  1. [1]Appelbaum PS Clinical practice. Assessment of patients' competence to consent to treatment N Engl J Med, 2007.PMID 17978292
  2. [2]Werner S Supported decision-making and personal autonomy for persons with intellectual disabilities: article 12 of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities J Law Med Ethics, 2013.PMID 24446938
  3. [3]Szmukler G "Capacity", "best interests", "will and preferences" and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities World Psychiatry, 2019.PMID 30600630
  4. [4]Sullivan WF, Heng J, Bach M, et al. Supporting adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities to participate in health care decision making Can Fam Physician, 2018.PMID 29650742
  5. [5]Buchanan A Mental capacity, legal competence and consent to treatment J R Soc Med, 2004.PMID 15340019