A client is on trial for a violent offense and the defense claims the client was legally insane at the time of the act. According to the M'Naghten Rule, which criterion must be met for the insanity defense to be valid?
The client was unable to distinguish right from wrong due to a mental disorder at the time of the crime.
The client had a documented history of mental illness prior to the crime.
The client was compelled by uncontrollable impulses to commit the act.
The client was unaware of the consequences of their actions due to intoxication.
The Correct Answer is A
Choice A reason: The M’Naghten Rule requires proof that, due to mental illness, the person did not understand the nature of the act or could not distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense. This is the key standard used in many jurisdictions for insanity defenses.
Choice B reason: Having a history of mental illness alone is not sufficient; the rule focuses on the client’s mental state during the offense, not prior diagnoses.
Choice C reason: Being driven by uncontrollable impulses is not part of the M’Naghten criteria. This falls more under the “irresistible impulse” test, which is separate.
Choice D reason: Intoxication, even if it impairs judgment, does not qualify under the M’Naghten Rule. Voluntary substance use generally excludes insanity defenses.
Nursing Test Bank
Naxlex Comprehensive Predictor Exams
Related Questions
Correct Answer is A
Explanation
Choice A reason: Nurses have a duty to protect potential victims from harm. Breaking confidentiality is justified to warn the intended victim and involve the healthcare team, consistent with the Tarasoff duty to warn principle.
Choice B reason: Warning the victim without involving the treatment team ignores the collaborative care process and may compromise safety planning.
Choice C reason: Waiting to act places the potential victim at risk and disregards the ethical duty to prevent harm.
Choice D reason: Maintaining confidentiality in this situation endangers others and violates the ethical principle of nonmaleficence.
Correct Answer is A
Explanation
Choice A reason: This response acknowledges the client’s experience without reinforcing the hallucination. It demonstrates empathy, maintains reality orientation, and builds trust, which are crucial therapeutic approaches.
Choice B reason: Challenging hallucinations with logic is not effective and can increase client defensiveness or distress. It may also escalate paranoia rather than reduce it.
Choice C reason: Avoiding the client ignores their distress and can increase isolation. Engagement is necessary to provide reassurance and therapeutic support.
Choice D reason: Directly denying the hallucination can invalidate the client’s experience, leading to mistrust and further paranoia. A more supportive acknowledgment is preferred.
Whether you are a student looking to ace your exams or a practicing nurse seeking to enhance your expertise , our nursing education contents will empower you with the confidence and competence to make a difference in the lives of patients and become a respected leader in the healthcare field.
Visit Naxlex, invest in your future and unlock endless possibilities with our unparalleled nursing education contents today
Report Wrong Answer on the Current Question
Do you disagree with the answer? If yes, what is your expected answer? Explain.
Kindly be descriptive with the issue you are facing.
