Article Text
PDF
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Gillon R. Defending the four principles approach as a good basis for good medical practice and therefore for good medical ethics. J Med Ethics 2015;41:111–6.
The author misrepresented Beauchamp and Childress when he wrote: 'My own view (unlike Beauchamp and Childress who explicitly state that they make no such claim (p. 421)1, is that all moral agents whether or not they are doctors or otherwise involved in healthcare have these prima facie moral obligations; but in the context of answering the question ‘what is it to do good medical ethics?’ my claim is limited to the ethical obligations of doctors'.
The author intended and should have written the following: ‘My own view, unlike Beauchamp and Childress who explicitly state that they make no such claim (p.421)1 is that these four prima facie principles can provide a basic moral framework not only for medical ethics but for ethics in general’.
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.
Copyright information:
Other content recommended for you
- Defending the four principles approach as a good basis for good medical practice and therefore for good medical ethics
- Ethics needs principles—four can encompass the rest—and respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”
- Correction
- What is it to do good medical ethics? A kaleidoscope of views
- When four principles are too many: a commentary
- The bioethical principles and Confucius’ moral philosophy
- Good medical ethics, from the inside out—and back again
- Ethics in epidemiology and public health I. Technical terms
- Principlism and moral dilemmas: a new principle
- What is it to do good medical ethics? An orthodox Jewish physician and ethicist's perspective