Ethics & Law · single question
A hearing-impaired patient comes accompanied by their 10-year-old son. The son translates that the father has severe tooth pain. The interpreter did not arrive. Which is the most appropriate emergency treatment?
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: C. Perform only emergency treatment on the patient
In a dental EMERGENCY, treatment can be performed to relieve pain and prevent harm without formal interpreter-mediated consent. This is an exception to the standard informed consent process — emergency care to relieve severe pain is ethically justified when the patient cannot provide full informed consent but is clearly in pain. A minor child (10-year-old son) should NOT be used as an interpreter for medical/dental consent (ethical standards and professional guidelines advise against using minors or family members as medical interpreters). Deferring emergency treatment causes unnecessary suffering.
- A. INCORRECT. Using a 10-year-old child as a medical interpreter for their parent is ethically inappropriate and violates professional standards. A minor cannot sign a consent form on behalf of an adult.
- B. INCORRECT. Deferring emergency treatment leaves the patient in severe pain and is ethically unjustifiable when emergency relief can be safely provided.
- C. CORRECT. For EMERGENCY TREATMENT only (pain relief, temporary measures), treatment can be performed even without full interpreter-mediated consent when the patient has an acute painful condition. This is ethically justified to prevent suffering. Non-emergency procedures should wait for proper interpretation.