It is easy to understand why this was true since morality as he conceived it lies in the background of all human activities. Man is not only a thinking being, as was emphasized by the Greek philosophers, but he is also a social and an active being and it is with this phase of his life that morality is concerned. It is involved in the political affairs of individuals and nations, and the same is true with reference to the social and religious life of any community of persons.
Moreover, problems may lurk when applying them to specific cases. I shall comment on each of the four scenarios in turn.
Nevertheless, the respect for persons principle mandates that physicians should comply with the expressed wishes of a competent adult patient even if the predicted consequences are unfavourable or grave.
Arguably, two ethical principles could support the opposite judgment: The principle of nonmaleficence requires physicians to avoid harm, whenever possible, so withholding a proven, beneficial treatment is likely to have the consequence of producing harm. Although withholding a treatment is an omission rather than an action, it represents a deliberate decision taken by a physician and therefore, constitutes a course of action.
One of the common and misguided criticisms of the four principles is that they constitute a deductive system and therefore, presumably, a rigid method for arriving at solutions to complex ethical dilemmas. A quite different criticism of the method makes the opposite point, finding it deficient because it does not yield clear answers to troubling moral quandaries.
As Gillon notes, moral agents have to come to their own answers, using their preferred moral theories, and at the same time consider the set of common moral commitments provided by the four principles.
What about the balance of benefits and harms? While I find this solution compelling, based on the underlying moral presuppositions and empirical assumptions, we can imagine an alternative analysis—also using the four principles—that could arrive at a different conclusion.
Physicians who believe that their primary obligation is to save lives, when possible, will, however, almost always subordinate respect for persons to beneficence.
Consider the following scenario. His wife is not employed, as she is occupied rearing the children. The family lives in the US, not the UK, and they would have no health insurance for the family if the breadwinner dies.
The husband has only a small life insurance policy that could support his family for a year or two after he dies. Elders of the church have urged Witnesses not to seek medical attention for conditions that might result in a recommendation of a blood transfusion. The net result would be a significant balance of harms over benefits, thereby contravening the principle of beneficence.
On this scenario, the principles of respect for persons and beneficence are not congruent, but are in conflict. Whether or not this scenario is plausible should not concern us. What is relevant to an analysis of this case is the scope of the principle of beneficence, that is, to whom the physician owes a moral obligation.
Let us consider one final possibility. They firmly refuse recommended blood transfusions, according to the teachings of their religion. They assert their refusals in the presence of family members and often, an elder of the church.
But when offered the option of speaking alone with a physician, they relent and accept blood. Although it is generally true that people say what they mean and mean what they say, legitimate exceptions occur. The foregoing considerations serve as a reminder that an ethical analysis using the four principles is complex.
It requires an interpretation of the principles themselves in the context in which they are applied, as well as an accurate assessment of the factual circumstances of the situation.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 .
only is the light of moral principles faded, but this principle is the foundation of communication and social interaction in everyday life, that, professional organization for people who work within the standards and ethical standards.
Ethics Ethics can be defined broadly as a set of moral principles or values. Each of us has such a set of values, although we may or may not have clearly expressed them. It is common for people to differ in their moral principles and values and the relative importance they attach to them.
T. THE HIDDEN EQUITY An Analysis of the Moral Content of the Principles of Equity By RALPH A. NEWMAN* TBE importance of equity in the structure of law has been recog-. To understand the nature of moral principles and beliefs, it is necessary to examine some typical ones for the purpose of determining their origin and the basis for their existence.
Because acts of justice and benevolence are among those which are most widely approved, he begins with an analysis of them. Related Articles Analysis of On the Heavens by Aristotle: The Argument for an Ordered Universe Summary of Write my assignment for me the an analysis of the moral principles in life Meaning of The Theory of Moral Virtue by Aristotle Through an analysis of the moral principles in life the ages.
and the community to Bentham's book An Introduction.