For and against the four principles of biomedical ethics

Author:

Huxtable Richard1

Affiliation:

1. Reader in Medical Ethics and Law, and Deputy Director, Centre for Ethics in Medicine, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK

Abstract

The four principles approach to biomedical ethics points to respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice as the norms that should guide moral agents working in the biosciences, and particularly in health care. While the approach is well known, it is not without its critics. In this paper, which is primarily aimed at health professionals and students (from various disciplines) who are studying health care ethics, I consider four problems with the four principles, which respectively claim that the approach is imperialist, inapplicable, inconsistent and inadequate. In keeping with the aims of the ‘five-minute focus’, the primary objective is to introduce these debates, rather than seek to resolve them. However, I will suggest that the approach does have its merits, not least for time-pressed clinicians who are keen to keep an eye on the ethical dimensions of their practices, and for students training in the health care professions, provided that they appreciate that the approach provides only a starting point for, and not the end point of, moral deliberation.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Philosophy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Medicine (miscellaneous)

Reference41 articles.

1. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics , 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 3–3.

2. Methods and principles in biomedical ethics

3. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics , 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 15–15.

Cited by 25 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Principlism and contemporary ethical considerations for providers of transgender health care;International Journal of Transgender Health;2024-01-19

2. A Medical Ethics Framework for Conversational Artificial Intelligence;Journal of Medical Internet Research;2023-07-26

3. Abortion, euthanasia, and the limits of principlism;Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy;2023-07-20

4. More Process, Less Principles: The Ethics of Deploying AI and Robotics in Medicine;Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics;2023-04-24

5. Treatment of adjustment disorders in mental health crisis care: a reflective case study;Journal of Prescribing Practice;2023-03-02

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3