Nonmaleficence and beneficence can get in conflict with the principle of autonomy. For physicians, beneficence can be seen both as a fulfillment of principle or moral virtue (Pence, 2008). In contrast with nomaleficence, the principle of beneficence implies moral obligation to act and to offer help for the benefit of others – and although not all beneficence acts are obligatory, this principle establishes an obligation for healthcare professionals to help others (Edwin, 2009). A medical error may in some sense violate the very foundation of the Hippocrates Oath in which physicians have practiced and continue to do so, and the non-disclosure of error exacerbates the situation ( Edwin, 2009 Jonsen et al., 2010 Pence, 2008). This principle implies an obligation not to do harm, thus a physician not technically competent to do a procedure should not do it, and medical students should not harm patients by practicing on them without consent. From the ancient maxim of professional medical ethics, “Primum non nocere: First, do not harm,” came the principle of nonmaleficence. This posting will contrast the principles of nomaleficence and beneficence including a risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses of a course of action. Ethical Issue: The Delicate Balance Among the Principles of Autonomy, Beneficence, and Nonmaleficence.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |