Page 8 of 9

PE32.1 | Physician in the Community — Assignment

CLINICAL SCENARIO

You will analyse a composite real-world paediatric case involving suspected child abuse or neglect with intersecting ethical and medicolegal dimensions. By reconstructing the clinical encounter, applying relevant Indian legislation, and proposing a structured child protection response, you will develop the ability to identify, describe, and defend medicolegal and ethical decisions as they arise in child healthcare — a core competency under PE32.1.

Instructions

Read the case vignette provided by your faculty (or select one from the three scenarios below with your faculty's approval).
Write a structured case analysis following the scaffold below.
Cite relevant Indian legislation by name and key section number (POCSO Act 2012, JJ Act 2015, RPWD Act 2016, MTP Act 1971 as amended 2021, or others as applicable).
Draw on the UNCRC four core principles and ethical frameworks (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice).
Submit 900–1,300 words. Peer reviewers should use the rubric provided.

Scenario options (confirm with faculty):
- Scenario A: A 7-year-old presenting with unexplained tibial spiral fracture and inconsistent history, parents deny abuse.
- Scenario B: A 14-year-old with HIV-positive status whose guardian refuses ART and age-appropriate disclosure to the child.
- Scenario C: A 5-year-old with severe acute malnutrition in a context of extreme family poverty, with no evidence of intentional neglect.

Length: 900–1,300 words across all six sections. Each section heading must appear in your submission.

What to Submit

Section 1: Case Summary and Clinical Findings (150–200 words)

Guidance: Summarise the presenting complaint, key clinical findings, and the central ethical or medicolegal concern. Describe the injury or situation using objective clinical language. Identify any red flags that raise concern for non-accidental injury, neglect, or rights violation.

Section 2: Applicable Indian Legislation (150–200 words)

Guidance: Identify the primary legislation applicable to this case (e.g. POCSO Act 2012, JJ Act 2015, RPWD Act 2016). State the relevant section numbers and the obligation they impose on the treating physician. Explain how the legislation applies specifically to your case facts — not just as a general summary of the law.

Section 3: Ethical Analysis (200–250 words)

Guidance: Apply the four principles of biomedical ethics (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice) to the case. Where they conflict, explain how you would prioritise. Address consent and assent issues if relevant — who has legal authority, and what is the child's expressed preference? Reference the UNCRC best-interests principle (Article 3) in your analysis.

Section 4: Immediate Action Plan (150–200 words)

Guidance: Describe what you would do in the next 24 hours: clinical management, documentation (what to record and how), mandatory reporting steps, and which authority to notify (police, SJPU, Child Welfare Committee). Justify each action with reference to the legislation or ethical principle identified above.

Section 5: Longer-term and Social Determinants (150–200 words)

Guidance: What longer-term steps are needed? Consider referral to social workers, link to government welfare schemes (ICDS, POSHAN Abhiyaan, NHM child health programmes), and follow-up mechanisms. If the case involves poverty-driven neglect, how do you distinguish this from wilful neglect, and what support systems should be activated? Consider the child's cultural and socioeconomic context.

Section 6: Reflection and Systemic Lessons (100–150 words)

Guidance: Reflect on what this case reveals about systemic gaps in child protection in India (e.g. awareness of mandatory reporting, availability of CWC, stigma around disability or HIV). What single change at the healthcare system level would most improve outcomes for children in this situation?

Grading Rubric — Child Protection Medicolegal Case Analysis Rubric

Criterion	Points	Full-marks descriptor
Accurate identification and application of Indian legislation (POCSO 2012, JJ Act 2015, or RPWD 2016) with correct section references	25 pts	Correct legislation identified; relevant sections cited by number with accurate description of the obligation; applied specifically to case facts with no errors.
Quality of ethical analysis using the four biomedical principles and UNCRC best-interests framework	25 pts	All four principles addressed; conflicts between them explicitly identified and resolved with reasoned justification; UNCRC Article 3 best-interests principle applied; consent and assent clearly differentiated.
Appropriateness and completeness of the immediate action plan (documentation, mandatory reporting, correct authority notified)	20 pts	All three components present: accurate documentation described, correct reporting authority identified (SJPU/CWC/police), and timeline appropriate; each action explicitly justified.
Integration of social determinants, welfare scheme linkage, and contextual sensitivity (poverty vs wilful neglect distinction where relevant)	15 pts	Social determinants specifically identified; at least one named government scheme (ICDS, POSHAN, NHM) linked to the case; poverty vs wilful neglect distinction made where relevant; culturally sensitive framing.
Quality of reflection and systemic insight	15 pts	Reflection is specific and evidence-based; identifies a concrete systemic gap; proposes a feasible, well-argued change; shows genuine critical thinking beyond case facts.

PEER REVIEW

Peer reviewers should read the case analysis and apply the rubric to evaluate: (1) whether legislation is correctly identified and applied with accurate section numbers; (2) whether the ethical analysis addresses multiple principles and resolves conflicts; (3) whether the action plan specifies the correct reporting authority; (4) whether welfare scheme linkage is present and specific; (5) whether the reflection offers a systemic insight beyond the individual case. Provide written feedback of 150–200 words explaining your scores and at least one specific strength and one area for improvement.