General Studies 2023 GS Paper IV 20 marks 250 words Compulsory Evaluate

Q8

A landslide occurred in the middle of the night on 20th July, 2023 in a remote mountain hamlet, approximately 60 kilometres from Uttarkashi. The landslide was caused by torrential rains and has resulted in large-scale destruction of property and life. You, as District Magistrate of that area, have rushed to the spot with a team of doctors, NGOs, media and police along with numerous support staff to oversee the rescue operations. A man came running to you with a request for urgent medical help for his pregnant wife who is in labour and is losing blood. You directed your medical team to examine his wife. They return and convey to you that this woman needs blood transfusion immediately. Upon enquiry, you come to know that a few blood collection bags and blood group test kits are available in the ambulance accompanying your team. Few people of your team have already volunteered to donate blood. Being a physician who has graduated from AIIMS, you know that blood for transfusion needs to be procured only through a recognized blood bank. Your team members are divided on this issue; some favour transfusion, while some others oppose it. The doctors in the team are ready to facilitate the delivery provided they are not penalized for transfusion. Now you are in a dilemma. Your professional training emphasizes on prioritising service to humanity and saving lives of individuals. (a) What are the ethical issues involved in this case? (b) Evaluate the options available to you, being District Magistrate of the area.

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

उत्तरकाशी से लगभग 60 किलोमीटर की दूरी पर सुदूर पहाड़ी बस्ती में 20 जुलाई, 2023 की मध्यरात्रि में एक भूस्खलन हुआ। भूस्खलन मूसलाधार बारिश के कारण हुआ और नतीजन जान-माल की हानि बड़े पैमाने पर हुई। आप, उस क्षेत्र के जिला मजिस्ट्रेट होने के नाते, डॉक्टरों के दल, एन.जी.ओ., मीडिया और पुलिस के साथ बहुत से सहायक स्टाफ को लेकर घटनास्थल पर बचाव अभियान के लिए तुरंत पहुंचे। एक आदमी अपनी गर्भवती पत्नी की अत्यावश्यक चिकित्सा सहायता के लिए आपके पास भागता हुआ आया, जो प्रसव में है और उन्हें रक्त रिसाव हो रहा है। आपने अपने चिकित्सक दल को उसकी पत्नी की जांच करने का निर्देश दिया। उन्होंने वापस आकर आपको बताया कि उस औरत को तुरंत खून चढ़ाने की आवश्यकता है। पूछताछ करने पर, आपको पता चला कि कुछ रक्त संग्रह बैग और रक्त समूह परीक्षण किट एम्बुलेंस में आपकी टीम के पास मौजूद है। आपकी टीम के कुछ सदस्य स्वेच्छा से अपना रक्तदान करने के लिए पहले से ही तैयार हैं। एम्स से स्नातक चिकित्सक होने के नाते, आप जानते हैं कि खून चढ़ाने के लिए मान्यता-प्राप्त ब्लड बैंक से ही रक्त के इंतजाम की आवश्यकता है। आपकी टीम के सदस्य इस मुद्दे पर बंटे हुए हैं; कुछ खून चढ़ाने के हक में हैं, जबकि कुछ इसके विरोध में हैं। यदि उन्हें खून चढ़ाने के लिए दंडित नहीं किया जाएगा तो टीम में डॉक्टर प्रसव कराने के लिए तैयार हैं। अब आप दुविधा में हैं। आपका पेशेवर प्रशिक्षण मानवता और लोगों का जीवन बचाने को प्राथमिकता देने पर जोर देता है। (a) इस मामले में कौन-से नैतिक मुद्दे शामिल हैं? (b) क्षेत्र के जिला मजिस्ट्रेट होने के नाते आपके पास उपलब्ध विकल्पों का मूल्यांकन कीजिए।

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 General Studies questions

Directive word: Evaluate

This question asks you to evaluate. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'evaluate' in part (b) demands balanced judgment with reasoning, while part (a) requires systematic identification of ethical issues. Spend approximately 40% of words on (a) identifying 4-5 ethical tensions (professional ethics vs humanitarian duty, legal compliance vs emergency necessity, institutional liability vs individual conscience), and 60% on (b) evaluating 3-4 concrete options with their trade-offs. Structure: brief context → ethical issues (a) → option evaluation with decision (b) → justified conclusion as DM.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Identifies tension between professional medical ethics (standard protocols, blood safety regulations under Drugs and Cosmetics Act) and humanitarian ethics (duty to save life in emergency, principle of beneficence)
  • For (a): Recognizes legal-ethical conflict: violation of NACO guidelines and potential criminal liability under IPC 304A (negligence) vs emergency exception doctrines and Good Samaritan protection
  • For (a): Highlights institutional ethics dilemma: accountability for team decisions, protection of subordinates, and precedent-setting in disaster governance
  • For (b): Evaluates Option 1 (immediate transfusion) with analysis of risks (HIV/hepatitis transmission, legal prosecution) and benefits (life saved, ethical priority to patient)
  • For (b): Evaluates Option 2 (evacuation to nearest blood bank) considering time-cost of 60km terrain and probability of maternal mortality
  • For (b): Evaluates Option 3 (middle path - rapid screening with available kits + documented informed consent + immediate evacuation arrangement) as administratively sound compromise, citing DM's powers under Disaster Management Act 2005

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%4For (a), systematically 'evaluates' ethical issues by weighing competing principles rather than merely listing; for (b), applies evaluative judgment across all options with explicit criteria (life preservation, legality, feasibility, accountability), not descriptive narrationLists ethical issues for (a) without prioritization or tension-analysis; for (b) describes options without clear evaluative framework or conclusive DM decisionMisreads 'evaluate' as 'describe' or 'list'; provides generic ethical commentary without addressing the specific transfusion dilemma; no clear decision in (b)
Content depth & accuracy20%4Accurately cites NACO guidelines on blood banking, Section 12 of Disaster Management Act 2005 (DM's powers), Good Samaritan protections; distinguishes between professional ethics (Medical Council of India conduct) and administrative ethics; recognizes AIIMS training context as relevant to DM's dual identityMentions blood safety and legal risks in general terms; references DM authority without specific statutory backing; conflates medical and administrative ethical frameworksFactually incorrect on blood banking laws (e.g., claims any doctor can authorize); ignores DM's statutory powers; misunderstands emergency exception principles; irrelevant content on disaster management unrelated to case
Structure & flow20%4Clear demarcation between (a) and (b) with visible sub-headings; within (a), ethical issues progress from individual-professional to institutional-legal; within (b), options presented with consistent evaluative template (merits-demerits-decision factor); seamless transition to justified conclusionBoth parts addressed but boundaries blurred; ethical issues and options intermixed; some logical flow but no explicit evaluative framework for options; conclusion present but not clearly derived from analysisNo structural separation between (a) and (b); disorganized jumping between issues and options; missing conclusion or abrupt ending; repetitive or circular argumentation
Examples / case-law / data20%4References specific precedents: Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab (2005) on medical negligence and emergency context; NACO/WHO guidelines on emergency blood transfusion; Kerala floods/Uttrakhand 2013 disaster protocols; possibly cites AIIMS emergency medicine protocols or Supreme Court on right to life in disasters (Parmanand Katara)General reference to 'Supreme Court guidelines' or 'disaster management rules' without specificity; mentions standard medical ethics principles (Hippocratic oath) without case-law linkage; no Indian disaster management precedentsNo legal or institutional references; relies on hypothetical examples or international cases without Indian relevance; incorrect citation of laws (e.g., IPC sections misapplied)
Conclusion & analytical edge20%4Concludes with specific DM decision (e.g., authorize transfusion with rapid screening + document exceptional circumstances + arrange immediate evacuation + assume institutional liability); demonstrates 'analytical edge' by proposing systemic improvement (portable blood banking units for remote areas, emergency protocol amendments) and reflecting on ethical leadership in administrative discretionStates a decision without clear reasoning chain; conclusion summarizes points without forward-looking or systemic insight; avoids personal accountability as DMNo clear decision or evades choice ('will consult higher authorities'); conclusion merely restates problem; no reflection on DM's ethical leadership; suggests legally impossible options

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from General Studies 2023 GS Paper IV