The document outlines several key ethical principles:
1) The principle of double effect provides criteria for determining when an action with both good and bad effects is morally permissible.
2) The principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence state that one should do good and avoid harm. They underlie more specific moral norms like not killing innocents.
3) The principles of integrity and totality state that the well-being of the whole person must be considered in medical decisions and that parts of the body can be sacrificed for the whole person's survival.
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)
120 views
Key Ethical Principles
The document outlines several key ethical principles:
1) The principle of double effect provides criteria for determining when an action with both good and bad effects is morally permissible.
2) The principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence state that one should do good and avoid harm. They underlie more specific moral norms like not killing innocents.
3) The principles of integrity and totality state that the well-being of the whole person must be considered in medical decisions and that parts of the body can be sacrificed for the whole person's survival.
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 19
Key Ethical Principles
Principle of Double Effect
An action that is good in itself that has
two effectsan intended and otherwise not reasonably attainable good effect, and an unintended yet foreseen evil effect--is licit, provided there is a due proportion between the intended good and the permitted evil. 2
Principle of Double Effect
The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one's fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil); The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm; The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the means of the foreseen harmful effects, and no other means of achieving those effects are available; The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment); The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects. 3
Principle of Beneficence
Traditionally understood as the "first
principle" of morality, the dictum "do good and avoid evil" lends some moral content to this principle. The principle of beneficence is a "middle principle" insofar as it is partially dependent for its content on how one defines the concepts of the good and goodness beneficence is not a specific moral rule and cannot by itself tell us what concrete actions constitute doing good and avoiding evil 4
Principle of Beneficence
The Principle of Nonmaleficence
commonly translated as "first, do no harm," is often considered to be a corollary to the principle of beneficence. As a middle principle, the principle of beneficence (and nonmaleficence) is the basis for certain specific moral norms (which vary depending on how one defines "goodness"). 5
Principle of Beneficence
Some of the specific norms that arise from the
principle of beneficence in the Catholic tradition are: never deliberately kill innocent human life (which, in the medical context, must be distinguished from foregoing disproportionate means); never deliberately (directly intend) harm; seek the patients good; act out of charity and justice; respect the patients religious beliefs and value system in accord with the principle of religious freedom;
Principle of Beneficence a.
b. c. d.
always seek the higher good, that is, never
neglect one good except to pursue a proportionately greater or more important good; never knowingly commit or approve an objectively evil action; do not treat others paternalistically but help them to pursue their goals; use wisdom and prudence in all things, that is, appreciate the complexity of life and make sound judgments for the good of oneself, others, and the common good. 7
Principles of Integrity and Totality
Believes the well-being of the whole person must
be taken into account in deciding about any therapeutic intervention or use of technology. "integrity" refers to each individuals duty to "preserve a view of the whole human person in which the values of the intellect, will, conscience, and fraternity are pre-eminent" (Gaudium et Spes, n. 61). "Totality" refers to the duty to preserve intact the physical component of the integrated bodily and spiritual nature of human life, whereby every part of the human body "exists for the sake of the whole as the imperfect for the sake of the perfect" 8
Principles of Integrity and Totality
However, a part of the human body
may be sacrificed if that sacrifice means continued survival for the person. While such sacrifices are normally justifiable under the principles of integrity and totality, they may sometimes be forgone under the principle of disproportionate means. 9
Principle of Proportionate and Disproportionate Means
This principle constitutes an important
approach to the analysis of ethical questions arising from the general obligation to preserve human life and the limits of that obligation the principle addresses whether the forgoing of life-sustaining treatment constitutes euthanasia or physicianassisted suicide in certain circumstances and it guides individuals and surrogate decision-makers in the weighing of benefits and burdens.
10
Principle of Proportionate and Disproportionate Means
Proportionate means is any treatment that, in the given circumstances, offers a reasonable hope of benefit and is not too burdensome for the patient or others. What is a reasonable hope of benefit to the patient should be judged within the context of the whole person (i.e., considered holistically, not just physiologically). A disproportionate means is any treatment that, in the given circumstances, either offers no reasonable hope of benefit (taking into account the well-being of the whole person) or is too burdensome for the patient or others, i.e., the burdens or risks are disproportionate to or outweigh the expected benefits of the treatment 11
Principle of Respect for Persons
All individual human beings are
presumed to be free and responsible persons and should be treated as such in proportion to their ability in the circumstances. Individuals with reduced autonomy are entitled to appropriate protection, according to the principles of subsidiarity, human dignity, justice, charity, and vicarious consent. 12
Principle of Respect for Persons
The human person, then, can be understood in
four interrelated ways: as a bodily subject, that is, we are not merely spirits that possess bodies, but we are body as much as we are spirit; as a knowing subject for which knowledge is a good both as an end in itself and as a means to fulfillment; as a social subject whose primary context is that of person situated in community; and as a self-transcendent subject insofar as we are related to God in our created nature, through Gods loving creation and in our ability to participate in that creation. 13
Principle of Respect for Persons
As a subject, and not
merely an object, a human person must be treated with respect in such a way that recognizes his or her human dignity. 14
Principle of Human Dignity
The intrinsic worth that inheres in every human being . is rooted in the concept of Imago Dei, in Christs redemption and in our ultimate destiny of union with God. Human dignity therefore transcends any social order as the basis for rights and is neither granted by society nor can it be legitimately violated by society. Human dignity is the conceptual basis for human rights. Every human being should be acknowledged as an inherently valuable member of the human community and as a unique expression of life, with an integrated bodily and spiritual nature. 15
Principle of Human Dignity
Is foundational for the
traditions understanding of distributive justice, the common good, the right to life and the right to health care 16
Principle of Informed Consent
It is the right and responsibility of
every competent individual to advance his or her own welfare. This right and responsibility is exercised by freely and voluntarily consenting or refusing consent to recommended medical procedures, based on a sufficient knowledge of the benefits, burdens, and risks involved.
17
Principle of Informed Consent
The ability to give informed consent
depends on: 1) adequate disclosure of information; 2) patient freedom of choice; 3) patient comprehension of information; and 4) patient capacity for decisionmaking. 18
Principle of Informed Consent
When these requirements are met, three
conditions are satisfied: 1) that the individuals decision is voluntary; 2) that this decision is made with an appropriate understanding of the circumstances; and 3) that the patients choice is deliberate insofar as the patient has carefully considered all of the expected benefits, burdens, risks and reasonable alternatives.