Applying the four principles

R. Macklin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 assumptions could yield a different conclusion about what is required by the principle of beneficence In the second scenario, although Gillon's conclusion is correct, what is open to question is his claim that what society regards as the child's best interest determines what really is in the child's best interest. The third scenario shows how it may be reasonable for the principle of beneficence to take precedence over autonomy in certain circumstances, yet like the first scenario, the ethical conclusion relies on a set of empirical assumptions and predictions of what is likely to occur. The fourth scenario illustrates how one can draw different conclusions based on the importance given to the precautionary principle.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)275-280
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
Volume29
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2003

Fingerprint

Beneficence
scenario
Scenarios
autonomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Applying the four principles. / Macklin, R.

In: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 29, No. 5, 10.2003, p. 275-280.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Macklin, R. / Applying the four principles. In: Journal of Medical Ethics. 2003 ; Vol. 29, No. 5. pp. 275-280.
@article{dd33664ba2bf4dfea2fa8cc747e5a615,
title = "Applying the four principles",
abstract = "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 assumptions could yield a different conclusion about what is required by the principle of beneficence In the second scenario, although Gillon's conclusion is correct, what is open to question is his claim that what society regards as the child's best interest determines what really is in the child's best interest. The third scenario shows how it may be reasonable for the principle of beneficence to take precedence over autonomy in certain circumstances, yet like the first scenario, the ethical conclusion relies on a set of empirical assumptions and predictions of what is likely to occur. The fourth scenario illustrates how one can draw different conclusions based on the importance given to the precautionary principle.",
author = "R. Macklin",
year = "2003",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1136/jme.29.5.275",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "275--280",
journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",
issn = "0306-6800",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Applying the four principles

AU - Macklin, R.

PY - 2003/10

Y1 - 2003/10

N2 - 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 assumptions could yield a different conclusion about what is required by the principle of beneficence In the second scenario, although Gillon's conclusion is correct, what is open to question is his claim that what society regards as the child's best interest determines what really is in the child's best interest. The third scenario shows how it may be reasonable for the principle of beneficence to take precedence over autonomy in certain circumstances, yet like the first scenario, the ethical conclusion relies on a set of empirical assumptions and predictions of what is likely to occur. The fourth scenario illustrates how one can draw different conclusions based on the importance given to the precautionary principle.

AB - 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 assumptions could yield a different conclusion about what is required by the principle of beneficence In the second scenario, although Gillon's conclusion is correct, what is open to question is his claim that what society regards as the child's best interest determines what really is in the child's best interest. The third scenario shows how it may be reasonable for the principle of beneficence to take precedence over autonomy in certain circumstances, yet like the first scenario, the ethical conclusion relies on a set of empirical assumptions and predictions of what is likely to occur. The fourth scenario illustrates how one can draw different conclusions based on the importance given to the precautionary principle.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0142074354&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0142074354&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/jme.29.5.275

DO - 10.1136/jme.29.5.275

M3 - Article

C2 - 14519836

AN - SCOPUS:0142074354

VL - 29

SP - 275

EP - 280

JO - Journal of Medical Ethics

JF - Journal of Medical Ethics

SN - 0306-6800

IS - 5

ER -