Article Text
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
Linked Articles
- Correction
- Correction
Other content recommended for you
- Ethics needs principles—four can encompass the rest—and respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”
- When four principles are too many: a commentary
- The bioethical principles and Confucius’ moral philosophy
- Good and not so good medical ethics
- A waste of time: the problem of common morality in Principles of Biomedical Ethics
- What is it to do good medical ethics? A kaleidoscope of views
- The revised International Code of Medical Ethics: an exercise in international professional ethical self-regulation
- What principlism misses
- In defence of moral imperialism: four equal and universal prima facie principles
- Determining the common morality's norms in the sixth edition of Principles of Biomedical Ethics