UPSC Mains 2026 GS4 Q4a: model answer
Citing the serious adverse effects of long-term medication, a doctor convinces the family of a female patient for surgery. This led the patient to reluctantly consent for the surgery, though her original choice was to opt for medication. Explain the concepts of paternalism and beneficence by analysing the doctor’s action.
What the question wants
Define both concepts, apply them to the doctor's act, and judge it against autonomy.
How to structure it
Intro: the case. Body: beneficence; paternalism; autonomy and consent. Conclusion.
- 1Beneficence
- 2Paternalism
- 3Autonomy and consent
Model answer
Beneficence is the duty to act for the patient's good. Paternalism is overriding or bypassing a person's choice for what one believes is her own good.
| Beneficence | Paternalism | |
|---|---|---|
| Aim | Patient's good | Patient's good |
| Who decides | Patient, informed | Doctor or family |
| In this case | Concern about side effects | Persuading the family, not her |
Beneficence in the doctor's act: he believed surgery would spare her the serious side effects of lifelong medicine. His motive appears to be her welfare.
Paternalism in the doctor's act
- He went to the family instead of persuading the patient herself.
- Her consent was given reluctantly, under family pressure, so it was not fully free.
- Families often decide for women; the doctor used that rather than resisted it.
Autonomy: in Samira Kohli (2008) the Supreme Court held that consent must come from a competent adult patient herself, after full information. Beneficence cannot override that.
The right course was to explain risks of both options to her directly, give time, and respect her decision. Good intent with poor respect for autonomy is still ethically flawed.
Keywords, cases and data to drop in
beneficence paternalism autonomy informed consent Samira Kohli
Where most answers lose marks
- Defining terms without applying them
- Ignoring the gender angle
Fresh examples from current affairs
Supreme Court: no prior approval under Section 17A needed to probe a bribe demand
In a judgment of 16 October 2026, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria held that investigating a bribe demand by a public servant does not need prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Asking for a bribe, the court said, is not part of discharging official duties.
UPSC angle: Prelims: Sections 7, 7A, 17A and 19 of the PC Act. · Mains GS-II/GS-IV: honest officers versus accountability.
19 Oct 2026Learn the concept
Question text as printed in the official UPSC question paper: https://www.upsc.gov.in/sites/default/files/QP-CSM-26-010926-GENERAL-STUDIES-PAPER-IV.pdf The model answer is original Battle IAS work; use it to learn structure, not to memorise.