PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - R Macklin
TI  - Applying the four principles
AID  - 10.1136/jme.29.5.275
DP  - 2003 Oct 01
TA  - Journal of Medical Ethics
PG  - 275--280
VI  - 29
IP  - 5
4099  - http://jme.bmj.com/content/29/5/275.short
4100  - http://jme.bmj.com/content/29/5/275.full
SO  - J Med Ethics2003 Oct 01; 29
AB  - 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.