Article Text

This article has corrections. Please see:

PDF

Paper
Defending the four principles approach as a good basis for good medical practice and therefore for good medical ethics
  1. Raanan Gillon
  1. Correspondence to Professor Raanan Gillon, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Campus, London W6 8RP, UK or 42 Brynmaer Road, London, SW11 4EW, UK; raanan.gillon{at}imperial.ac.uk

Abstract

This paper argues that the four prima facie principles—beneficence, non-maleficence, respect for autonomy and justice—afford a good and widely acceptable basis for ‘doing good medical ethics’. It confronts objections that the approach is simplistic, incompatible with a virtue-based approach to medicine, that it requires respect for autonomy always to have priority when the principles clash at the expense of clinical obligations to benefit patients and global justice. It agrees that the approach does not provide universalisable methods either for resolving such moral dilemmas arising from conflict between the principles or their derivatives, or universalisable methods for resolving disagreements about the scope of these principles—long acknowledged lacunae but arguably to be found, in practice, with all other approaches to medical ethics. The value of the approach, when properly understood, is to provide a universalisable though prima facie set of moral commitments which all doctors can accept, a basic moral language and a basic moral analytic framework. These can underpin an intercultural ‘moral mission statement’ for the goals and practice of medicine.

  • Ethics

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Correction
    BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics
  • Correction
    BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics