rss
J Med Ethics 29:275-280 doi:10.1136/jme.29.5.275
  • Paper

Applying the four principles

  1. R Macklin
  1. Correspondence to:
 Professor R Macklin, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Ave, Bronx, New York 10463, USA; 
 macklin{at}aecom.yu.edu
  • Accepted 25 June 2003

Abstract

Gillon is correct that the four principles provide a sound and useful way of analysing moral dilemmas. As he observes, the approach using these principles does not provide a unique solution to dilemmas. This can be illustrated by alternatives to Gillon’s own analysis of the four case scenarios. In the first scenario, a different set of factual assumptions could yield a different conclusion about what is required by the principle of beneficence. In the second scenario, although Gillon’s conclusion is correct, what is open to question is his claim that what society regards as the child’s best interest determines what really is in the child’s best interest. The third scenario shows how it may be reasonable for the principle of beneficence to take precedence over autonomy in certain circumstances, yet like the first scenario, the ethical conclusion relies on a set of empirical assumptions and predictions of what is likely to occur. The fourth scenario illustrates how one can draw different conclusions based on the importance given to the precautionary principle.

Footnotes

    Free sample
    This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of JME.
    View free sample issue >>

    Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

    Navigate This Article