Skip to content

Revise by topic

Children & medico-legal for MRCS Part A

Two short lines of Paper 2 sit together here and contribute 10 of its 120 questions: surgical care of children 7, and medico-legal aspects of surgical practice 3. The paediatric line covers the neonatal and congenital conditions a core trainee must recognise and refer — oesophageal atresia, malrotation, necrotising enterocolitis, Hirschsprung’s disease, anorectal malformations and congenital diaphragmatic hernia — the common conditions of infancy and childhood such as pyloric stenosis, intussusception, inguinal hernia and hydrocele, the undescended testis, appendicitis and the acute scrotum, and the physiology, fluid prescribing and consent that differ from adult practice. The medico-legal line covers consent, capacity and confidentiality, including in children and young people, the Mental Capacity Act and its equivalents, negligence and the Montgomery standard, the duty of candour, clinical governance and the GMC’s Good medical practice. Both lines are small but precise, and a few hours of focused revision secure them.

100 questions in the bank · 2 topics Updated 6 October 2026

Topics in this domain

  • Surgical care of children70
  • Medico-legal aspects of surgical practice30

What the paper tends to test

  • Questions typically describe an infant with vomiting and ask for the diagnosis from the detail — bilious in the first days of life, projectile and non-bilious at 4–6 weeks, with colic and red-currant jelly stool at 6–9 months.
  • Expect the undescended testis, the hydrocele and the inguinal hernia to be tested on timing: which resolve, which are referred, and when orchidopexy or herniotomy is done.
  • Paediatric fluid questions use weight-based maintenance (the 4-2-1 rule or 100-50-20 ml/kg/day), a 10 ml/kg bolus and the circulating volume of a child.
  • The acute scrotum is examined as torsion until proved otherwise, with the window for exploration as the discriminator.
  • Consent questions ask who can consent for a child, what Gillick competence means, and what happens when a competent young person refuses treatment.
  • Capacity questions apply the Mental Capacity Act 2005 — the presumption of capacity, the two-stage test and best-interests decisions — and the duty of candour after a notifiable safety incident.
  • Expect negligence to be tested through Bolam, Bolitho and Montgomery, and confidentiality through the circumstances in which it may be breached.

Classic traps and discriminators

  • Bilious vomiting in a neonate is malrotation with midgut volvulus until proved otherwise and needs an urgent upper gastrointestinal contrast study and surgical review; pyloric stenosis presents at 4–6 weeks with non-bilious projectile vomiting, a palpable ‘olive’ and a hypochloraemic, hypokalaemic metabolic alkalosis that must be corrected before pyloromyotomy.
  • Intussusception peaks at 6–9 months with colicky pain, drawing up of the legs, a sausage-shaped mass and red-currant jelly stool; ultrasound shows the target sign, and the first-line treatment is air (pneumatic) reduction under radiological control provided there is no peritonitis or perforation.
  • A paediatric inguinal hernia is repaired by herniotomy alone, and promptly in infants because of the risk of incarceration; a congenital hydrocele usually resolves by about 2 years and is left until then. An undescended testis is referred for orchidopexy by about 6–12 months of age, not watched into childhood.
  • Children under 16 can consent to treatment if Gillick competent; those of 16 and 17 are presumed to have capacity under the Family Law Reform Act 1969. In England and Wales a refusal by a competent child can be overridden by a person with parental responsibility or by the court; the position in Scotland is governed by the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991.
  • Capacity is decision-specific and time-specific, is presumed in adults, and is not lost because a decision is unwise; a patient lacks capacity only if an impairment of the mind or brain means they cannot understand, retain, use or weigh the information, or communicate the decision — and even then the decision is made in their best interests, not by their relatives.
  • The statutory duty of candour (Regulation 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014) applies to notifiable safety incidents: tell the patient what happened, apologise, explain what will be done to find out more and follow up in writing. An apology is not an admission of liability.

Free children & medico-legal practice question

From the free sample — original, referenced, with the full explanation. Rate your confidence first.

medium

A 5-day-old term boy at a district general hospital without a paediatric surgical service has had three green vomits overnight. He is pink and well perfused, his abdomen is soft and not distended, and he has passed meconium.

Which is the most appropriate management?

How sure are you?

Children & medico-legal questions, answered

How many questions on children and medico-legal practice are in Paper 2?

The ICBSE blueprint lists 7 of the 120 Paper 2 questions under surgical care of children and 3 under medico-legal aspects of surgical practice. Paediatric orthopaedics is a separate subtopic of the surgical conditions line, and paediatric trauma and burns sit within trauma.

What is Gillick competence?

The principle, from Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA (1985), that a child under 16 can consent to their own treatment if they have sufficient maturity and understanding to grasp what is proposed, its risks and the alternatives. It is assessed for each decision, and the more serious the decision the greater the understanding required.

Who can consent for a child?

A person with parental responsibility — the mother, a father who was married to the mother or is named on the birth certificate, adoptive parents, a legally appointed guardian or the court — or the child themselves if Gillick competent or aged 16–17. In an emergency, treatment in the child’s best interests proceeds without consent if no one with parental responsibility can be reached.

What did Montgomery change about consent?

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) replaced the doctor-centred Bolam test for the disclosure of risk with a patient-centred one: a surgeon must take reasonable care to ensure the patient is aware of any material risk and of reasonable alternatives, judged by what a reasonable person in the patient’s position, or this particular patient, would want to know. Bolam, qualified by Bolitho, still governs the standard of treatment itself.

Drill children & medico-legal tonight

Create a free account, filter the bank to this domain and rate your confidence as you go. Upgrade when you want the full bank and two-paper mocks.