Prima Facie, Rationality, Autonomy, And Universalizability

Autonomy refers to an individual’s right to self- rule or governs one’s self (Beauchamp Childress, 2009). Autonomy is refer to the individual right to make his or her own decision regarding their health care needs. This is respected in the health care setting.

Ethics is defined as moral principles that administer a person’s behaviour. It is the basic perception and essential principle of decent human conduct. Issues concerning unethical approach are known as ethical issues.

Autonomy includes three primary conditions: (1) liberty (independence from controlling influences), (2) agency (capacity for intentional action), and (3) understanding (through informed consent) (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009, p. 100). According to Beauchamp & Childress (2009) to respect autonomous agents, one must acknowledge their right to hold views, to make choices, and to take actions based on their personal values and beliefs (p. 103). Respect for autonomy implies thaturges caregivers to respect theassist a patient in achieving? Heed? the autonomous choices of their patients. From there, patients can act intentionally and with full understanding when evaluating medical treatment modalities. Autonomy also includes a set of rules, one of which requires that providers honor patient decision-making rights by providing the truth, also known as veracity (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009, p. 103). In this case, several facets of the principle of respecting autonomy, specifically veracity, informed

First, all individuals do have a duty to what is right, whether they act accordingly or not. All citizens are held to a duty to uphold the laws, if there was no duty then laws would not exist. Morality coincides with being loyal to the laws, being a disciplined person, and living an orderly life. These essentials are all present in Kant’s perception of duty.

This formulation introduces the concept of doing something for the right reason not for an ulterior motive. The character of the motive is what dictates the adherence to the imperative. This is possible with autonomy, the decision to act according to moral duty without outside influence.

The precedence of personal autonomy in healthcare is a distinctive characteristic in Western medicine that allows people to be free from controlling interference by external factors. Modern bioethicists believe that patient autonomy should not be exhausted, but rather prioritized over all other bioethical principles, which are beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice (2008, Tsai). Though patient autonomy is a cornerstone in Western medicine and bioethics, the extent to which patient autonomy should be exercised remains undefined. Currently, patient’s desires are deemed “autonomous” when assessed under a certain procedural criteria; however, different views on how these criterias can be formulated leads to ambiguous moral conclusions on patient

Nursing is an all encompassing profession in which practitioners are not only proficient in technical medical functionality, they also have the obligation to remain compassionate and respectful of patients and as such are expected to adhere to pre established codes of ethics. Of these ethics, autonomy is of extreme importance as it offers patients a sense of personal authority during a time where they may feel as if their lives, or at the very least their health, is no longer under their control. Autonomy in the context of nursing allocates the patient and often their family with the final word on the course of treatment. The concept of patient autonomy is a highly variable subject in all fields of health care. It is a universal concept that varies widely in its meaning and interpretation. Autonomy in its simplest form can be defined as a state of independence or self governing (Atkins, 2006). Patient autonomy can also be defined as the ability to make once own decisions, based on one’s sound judgment. It is defined by the American Nurses Association (ANA, 2011) as the "agreement to respect another 's right to self determine a course of action; support of independent decision making." This seemingly straight forward ethical concept is rife with difficulties when one considers potential disagreements that may arise even when informed consent is provided, particularly among children or vulnerable people. Relevant research and

2a. The universalizability version of the Categorical Imperative states to act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. It generalizes the rule to decide if an act is morally permissible. A maxim is a personal rule to guide one’s behavior. For example, a maxim can be to run three miles every day. If everyone can do the maxim, then it could become a universal law. On the other hand, if not everyone can do the maxim, then the act is impermissible, and should not be followed. The maxim of running three miles a day is impermissible, because many people cannot run three miles a day for all several reasons.

Davis, C. W., Sr. (2017). “Ethics and Universal Truths.” ethics is, “a set of principles which apply to all humans” (“Universal Ethics,” 2017). Universal ethics consist of four things it is, universal, comprehensive, logical, and non-random. A Universal Ethic is free of personal, and cultural views. Universal ethics are nonspecific and apply to everyone. Many universal ethics are self-evident, but others are more complicated. When talking about universal ethics, the question of existence constantly rises. What is humankind? Why does it exist? What is it here to do? Universal ethics cannot answer these questions, but rather provide us with a “Moral Constitution” for life, that of which is accepted by all human beings (“Universal Ethics,” 2017).

Universal ethics, defined by Immanuel Kant, is an ethical theory that applies to rational beings. An act is morally right when the will is perfectly aligned with duty. That is, an action has to be motivated by duty to have moral worth. The responsibilities of duty are universal; they are instilled in all rational beings and apply to all people, in all possible situations. To understand Kantian ethics, we have to understand its formulation, the categorical imperative. The imperative is an order that follows from the command of reason that tells a rational beings what they must do. It cannot be opposed, refused, or modified. In this sense, the categorical imperative is different from hypothetical imperative, which is the if-then structure.

Within philosophy, ethics is the division that focuses on morality, which defines behavior as right and wrong. Ethical principles represent standard guidelines for behavior, while also justifying a person’s given course of action. Society defines what moral values and behaviors are held and legislated (DeNisco & Barker, 2016). Further, ethical principles include the concepts of autonomy, freedom, beneficence, fidelity. Autonomy entails a person’s desire to direct themselves, while freedom is the person’s right to do as they please. However, this right is contingent on members of a society agreeing, whether explicitly or not, to abide by behaviors that do not deceive or force others–behaviors that lead to peaceful interpersonal relationships. Beneficence is the person’s motivation to do good, and fidelity is the individual’s

An easy explanation for the principles of universalizability is the old cliché, “What’s good for the good is good for the gander.” The concept behind Immanuel Kant’s principles of universalizability is that what is fair and/or just for one individual must be fair and/or just for any other individual in a similar circumstance (Kantian Ethics, n.d.). Kant believed that the morality behind an individual’s intentions and/or reasoning behind their actions depended on the individual’s basis for the action and has nothing to do with results. However, the principle of universalizability is unsuccessful in defining the morality of one’s actions because an individual cannot do something based on a formal principle of universalizability and still behave immoral. Simply put, one cannot act one way while expecting everyone else to act another way. It seems as if it would be difficult for this principle to be applied in the real world due to the diversity that exist and there has to be absolute truths in order to keep our

When considering ethical issues, we have to consider things in a global prospective, because what may be perfectly right for one nation may be looked in a different way from a different

The relationship between the principle of universalizability and the principle of humanity is that they both are aspects of the categorial imperative. The categorical imperative is morally binding and thus, in Kant’s view, both of these principles are morally binding. The principle of universalizability is the idea that an act should only be permissible if that act could be considered a universal law, by which everyone would follow it. The main example of this act that is used, is of telling a lie for a particular reason that benefits you. If this act was made a universal law, it would be the case that everybody lies, all the time. Obviously you would live in one dysfunctional society if that was the case. The principle of humanity is the idea

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the principles correlated to human behavior concerning the rightness and wrongness of specific conduct, and to the good and bad that influences and ends those actions (Ditonary.com, 2011). In other words, ethics is the choice people effect in regards to a decision they need to achieve. Without ethics directing the choice an individual makes, moral preferences of what should or should not be done becomes irrelevant. While ethical decisions are made every day there are two different regions in which these choices are made.