Print PDF he principle of nonmaleficence states that we should act in ways that do not inflict evil or cause harm to others.
The Principle of Nonmaleficence: Illustrative Cases In the course of caring for patients, there are some situations in which some type of harm seems inevitable, and we are usually morally bound to choose the lesser of the two evils, although the lesser of evils may be determined by the circumstances.
For example, most would be willing to experience some pain if the procedure in question would prolong life. However, in other cases, such as the case of the patient dying of painful intestinal carcinoma, the patient might choose to forego CPR in the event of a cardiac or respiratory arrest, or the patient might choose to forego life sustaining technology such as dialysis or a respirator.
The reason for such a choice is based on the belief of the patient that prolonged living with a painful and debilitating condition is worse than death. It is also important to note in this case that this determination was made by the patient, who alone is the authority on the interpretation of the "greater" or "lesser" harm for him.
There is another category of cases that is also confusing since a single action may have two effects, one that is considered a good effect, the other a bad effect. How does our duty to the principle of nonmaleficence direct us in such cases?
The formal name for the principle governing this category of cases is usually called the principle of double effect.
A typical example might be the question as to how to best treat a pregnant woman newly diagnosed with cancer of the uterus. The usual treatment, removal of the uterus is considered a life saving treatment.
However, this procedure would result in the death of the fetus. What action is morally allowable, or, what is our duty? It is argued in this case that the woman has the right to self-defense, and the action of the hysterectomy is aimed at preserving her life. The unintended consequence though undesired is the death of the fetus.
There are four conditions that usually apply to the principle of double effect: The reader may apply these four criteria to the case above, and find that the principle of double effect applies and the four conditions are not violated by the prescribed treatment plan.
Other problems arise when the primary patient cannot decide for himself and others must determine what is in the best interest of the patient, or what constitutes the lesser harm. In Washington State, the law actually guides the surrogate to offer "substituted judgment" if known, or to follow the course of action that will serve the "best interests" of the patient as determined by reasonable judgment see also Advance DirectivesAdvance Care Planningand Informed Consent.
Send comments to bioethx u.The ethical principle of justice non-maleficence and virtue of veracity are violated. Moreover, the act of hospital management and transplant team were against the theory of deontology. The principle of utility is presented by Mill as an absolute or preeminent principle, thus making beneficence the one and only supreme principle of ethics.
It justifies all subordinate rules and is not simply one among a number of prima facie principles. he principle of nonmaleficence states that we should act in ways that do not inflict evil or cause harm to others.
In particular, we should not cause avoidable or intentional harm. This includes avoiding even the risk of harm. It is important to point out that this principle can be violated with or without intention.
The principle of “Non-Maleficence” requires an intention to avoid needless harm or injury that can arise through acts of commission or omission. In common language, it can be considered “negligence” if you impose a careless or unreasonable risk of harm upon another.
Principles: fidelity, veracity, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice & distributive justice In this case, there is a clear violation of institutional policy designed to protect the .
PRINCIPLE OF NON-MALEFICENCE The physician-patient relationship is fiduciary. The patient believes and trusts that Obligation of non-maleficence: moral dilemma in physician-patient relationship. obligation of non-maleficence. MORAL DILEMMA In order to address the question raised, that is, if the infliction of fatal harm could ever be.