The Four Principle Approach Summary

In this paper I will explain how the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non- maleficence, and justice apply in terms of Beauchamp’s article The Four Principle Approach. I will also argue the relevancy of these principles in the case of Mrs. Francois and her refusal of potentially life saving surgery, and allow these principles to guide my decision as to how the surgeon should proceed. I will further consider how Clouser and Gert’s A Critique of Principlism may challenge or improve my considerations, and conclude with the significance of such considerations.

The principle of Autonomy is the most relevant to this case. As discussed in Beauchamp’s article, respect for autonomy allows self-governance, responsibility for one’s own choices, consent

The respect of the various facets of patients’ autonomy should be implemented as part of the surgeons approach. According to Beauchamp’s article, patients have the right to decide for themselves in regard to various treatment plans, provided that they receive complete, accurate and comprehensive information. Patient autonomy is complex and context is imperative to every situation. In this case, Mrs. Francois appears to be aware of the consequences of not receiving surgery, which suggests that she is capable of making decisions independently. Moreover, if there was still any remaining uncertainties regarding Mrs. Francois’ ability to make informed decisions, a third party should be brought in to asses her medical competence, such as a social worker or a psychiatrist. As stated in Beauchamp’s article, the autonomy of individuals expressed through informed consent is a fundamental value within this approach. In the case of Mrs. Francois, the surgeon is put in a difficult situation whereby the patient is in a life-threatening position and refuses treatment. If the surgeon takes on a paternalistic approach to treating this patient who appears to be coherent, the surgeon will be disregarding their patients

Francois. I am deeming it the least significant because it refers to the obligations of fairness and equality, such as distribution of benefits and risks to all patients. In other words, it acknowledges that all patients are entitled to fair treatment, fair sharing of resources, balancing public and private benefit, cost-benefit analysis, balancing benefits and burdens. It is my understanding that the case study takes place in Canada, where we have equal access to resources. For instance, access to healthcare regardless of socioeconomic standing in Canada. In regards to equality in the provision of healthcare, some individuals are not treated with the same respect and fair treatment that others are. However, Mrs. Francois was treated appropriately by her physicians in this case. Therefore, the principle of justice was the least relevant to this case