Principlism
Principlism has progressively developed into a convenient approach for ethical decision-making that centers on mutual moral principles of beneficence, autonomy, nonmaleficence and justice. Its practical aspect affirms that principlism can be a derivative of, resonate with and is consistent with various ethical, theological and social moral deliberation approaches. In the same note, a pluralistic approach is critical when making moral deliberations pedagogically, as a community and institutionally. The reason for this is disagreements on various moral theories and their epistemic rationalization that pluralistic factions encounter. However, through the development of intersubjective principles for moral decision-making such as principlism, a certain mutual wavelength can be established. This article seeks to display an analysis as well as developing a positive critique of principlism as a moral deliberation framework.
Upon the establishment of these principles, the practical dimension will then focuses on specifying and balancing the appropriate scenario to implement the principle. Bulger (85-86) argues that if the principle is to be executed, it must, therefore, be within a specific situation and must balance with other competing moral principles. Using this approach leaves every moral deliberation in a dilemma since the agent will be either right or wrong to some extend under a solitary principle. On the other hand, the agent will be enclosed within two or more competing moral principles in which they will have to fulfill one at the expense of the other. He continues to hypothesize that dilemmatic deliberations are in most cases very common when making pluralistic collective decisions. A perfect example of this proc...
... middle of paper ...
...ely result in a society with moral progression while appreciating beauty, need for pluralism, moral respect and diversity.
Works Cited
Bulger, Jeffery W. “Principlism.” Principlism (n.d): 85-86. Print.
Cary, M. Questioning Our Principles: Anthropological Contribution to Ethical Dilemmas in Clinical Practice. Southern Methodist University. 7-8. Print.
Lawrence, Dana, J. “The Principles of Biomedical Ethics: A Foundation for Current Bioethical Debate.” Journal of Chiropractic Humanities 14 (2007): 35-36. Web.
McCormick, Thomas R., and Min D. “Principles of Bioethics.” Principles of Bioethics (2013). Ethics in Medicine. 1 October 2013. University o Washington. Print.
P, DeMarco J. “Principlism and Moral Dilemmas: A New Principle.” Journal of Medical Ethics 31.2 (2005): 101-102. 19 June 2004. Web.
The case of Marguerite M presents an ethical dilemma. Medical ethics play a special role in medicine and is directly concerned with its practice. Its role has continued to evolve as changes develop in
In the realm of medical ethics, there are many topics that are debated and discussed, but there is not necessarily one clear, correct answer. One of these topics is paternalism. Many questions are bandied back and forth: is it beneficial, should it be disallowed entirely, are there instances when paternalism is good and beneficial, and the list goes on. For each of these questions there have been authors who have provided their comments. One such author is Alan Goldman. He draws a very firm line on paternalism, simply put: medical paternalism is deleterious to a patient because it intrudes on their primary rights of liberty and autonomy. This paper is going to expound upon Goldman’s viewpoint in detail, going through point by point how he presents his argument. There will then be a critique of Goldman’s viewpoint that will counter his main points. The counterpoints will show Goldman’s views on paternalism are incorrect and should not be considered valid.
Rossian Pluralism claims that there are multiple things that we have basic, intrinsic moral reason to do, which he names as the prima facie duties. These duties are not real, obligatory duties that one must follow under all circumstances, but are “conditional duties” (Ross 754) that one should decide to follow or reject upon reflection of their circumstances. This moral theory has faced criticisms, most strongly in the form of the problem of trade-offs. However, I will demonstrate that the problem of trade-offs is an issue that can be neglected as a valid objection to Rossian Pluralism because it is applicable to other theories as well and it is a factor that makes a moral theory more valuable than not.
Wilson , James G. S., “Rights”, Principles of Health Care Ethics, Second Edition, eds. R.E. Ashcroft, A. Dawson, H. Draper and J.R. McMillan. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2007. pp. 239.
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory that can be followed by moral agents at all times. The first is rooted in consequentialism and is as follows: 1. Moral agents should cause moral pain or suffering only when the pain or suffering is justified by a moral consideration that is more important than the pain or suffering caused. The second is an autonomous theory, where other’s autonomy must be respected, it is 2. Moral agents should respect the autonomy of moral agents.
Since the inception of this mode of research, peoples’ perception of what constitutes moral behavior towards patients and specifically harvesting cells from patients has changed. Over time, other doctors would take cells from patients without patient consent and use them for research. Coming from this, people began to think about how ethical this was, and especially if the potential for scientific or medical advances outweighs the injustices imposed by the lack of obtaining patient consent. One could argue that in the area of ethical behavior and medical advances, it might be necessary and acceptable to take cells or tissue samples without patient consent. And even though these cells and the research of these cells might not affect the patient, what advantages and disadvantages could come from obtaining or not obtaining patient consent?
Bioethics was originated many centuries ago. Ethical theories in medicine are the basis of bioethics. There are many different ethical approaches which causes much dispute. The imperical question is, what makes an act right and which approach to follow. The Greeks addressed the virtue of ethics. They looked into the good of the person and the situation. Ethos in Greek means, disposition and trait. So consequently they looked at eh person’s skills, habits, and traits. Compassion and the meaning of suffering are some other issues in Bioethics that can be argued. Choosing an act because it is right and also looking at the consequences are some other concerns. Other things to consider are what the patient and their families want. Their religious beliefs are also a major concern. How far should someone go to help a dying suffering patient who wants to take their life? Is it right to intercept and help a patient to die? Medical technology is ever advancing. People are being kept alive for years on support. This is a major topic of debate in Bioethics. Deciding if it’s right or wrong to keep them alive even if they are brain dead is a major concern. What constitutes a person a person when they have Alzheimer’s or brain damage? Are they a person? These are some of the major topics discussed in Bioethics.
In this diverse society we are confronted everyday with so many ethical choices in provision of healthcare for individuals. It becomes very difficult to find a guideline that would include a border perspective which might include individual’s beliefs and preference across the world. Due to these controversies, the four principles in biomedical ethic which includes autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice help us understand and explain which medical practices are ethical and acceptable. These principles are not only used to protect the rights of a patient but also the physician from being violated.
Gedge, E., & Waluchow, W. (2012). Readings in health care ethics (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Broadview Press.
Steinbock, Bonnie, Alex J. London, and John D. Arras. "The Principles Approach." Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. Contemporary Readings in Bioethics. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 36-37. Print.
9) Wall, L.L. (2006). The medical ethics of Dr J Marion Sims: a fresh look at the historical record. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(6), 346-350. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.012559
Rothman, D.J. (1987). Ethics and human experimentation. New England Journal of Medicine, 317: 1195- 9.
Jecker, N. (1990). Integrating medical ethics with normative theory: Patient advocacy and social responsibility. 11(2), 125-139.
McGee, Glenn and Arthur L. Caplan. "Medical Ethics." Microsoft® Encarta® 98 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1997: Microsoft Corporation. CD-ROM.
HIS essay presents the key issues surrounding the concepts of partiality and impartiality in ethical theory. In particular, it argues that the tension between partiality and impartiality has not been resolved. Consequently, it concludes that the request for moral agents to be impartial does demand too much. To achieve this goal, this essay consists of four main parts. The first part gives an overview of the concept of impartiality. The second deals with the necessity of impartiality in consequentialism and deontology. The third deals with the tension between partiality and impartiality (Demandingness Objection). Specifically, how a duty to perform supererogatory acts follows from impartial morality. The fourth and final part refutes positions that maintain that partiality and impartiality have been reconciled. Therefore, it demonstrates that current ethical theories that demand moral agents to behave in a strictly impartial fashion are unreasonable.