The Principle Of Bioethics In Health Care

One of bioethical of the bioethical principle implicated in the case of Memorial Hospital is the beneficence. The principle of beneficence expresses an obligation to provide benefits

There are four principles of ethics: Respect for autonomy, Beneficence, Non maleficence and Justice. This four principles offers comprehensive thought of the ethical issues in clinical settings (Beauchamp and Childress 2001 cited in UK Clinical ethics Network 2011).

Bioethics is a very diverse and subjective issue in Buddhism that bases its self around fundamental Buddhist laws such as the five precepts, the four Noble Truths and The Noble Eightfold path. Each Buddhist variant approaches bioethics differently based on the variants primary goal, ideals or practices. However all Buddhists views of bioethics are somewhat influenced by the universal goal of Buddhism to become liberated from the constant cycle of reincarnation or samsara. In conjecture with Buddhism, the occurrence of samsara allows for one to attain a new view on everything including bioethics allowing for the chance to discover or come to an ultimate realisation which in turn allows for the ultimate realisation of issues relating to

In discussing the difficult subject of biomedical ethics, there are different scenarios that play out differently because of people’s views about morality. Consider the scenario of an eighty year-old man whom we will call Mr. Simpson. Years of getting the flu with complications has left Mr. Simpson’s lungs very weak and unable to take another year of the flu. In fact another year of the flu will likely kill him. He does not want the flu shot because he sincerely believes that the actual flu shot will give him the flu. With further research, the doctor and the family find that Mr. Simpson will accept an immune boosting shot only. If the physician lies to Mr. Simpson about the injection then he will

Principlism is a common practical approach to any bioethical dilemmas in medicine. According to Lewis Vaughn, there are five principles in Principlism that can provide a framework for reasoning through moral medical issues, which include autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, utility, and justice. Autonomy refers to the capacity of a person for making decisions for his/her own life. Nonmaleficence refers to doing absolutely no harm to others in any cases. Beneficence defines the right action to do is to bring good to others. Utility refers to always balancing out the harm by the good of an action. Justice refers to everyone should get an equal and fair treatment. The aforementioned five principles are supposed to provide some general guidelines for anyone who is

These principles have become widely used frameworks for ethical both in healthcare practice and also in clinical research. A few brief definitions; beneficence refers to the balancing of benefits of a treatment against the risks and acting in the way that most benefits the patient. Nonmaleficence is the avoidance of excessive harm. All treatments will have some risks and harm however minimal, the principle of nonmaleficence requires that the harm should not be disproportionate to the benefits of the treatment. Respect for patient autonomy is just as it states, that the patient should be respected as someone who can make reasoned, informed decisions of their own free will. Lastly, the principle of justice simply requires that risks and benefits be distributed fairly and that patients in similar situations should get similar treatments from their healthcare professionals. In another article, Macklin criticizes the four principles for not providing a useful way of solving bioethical issues, rather she believes that they provide a “sound and useful way of analysing moral dilemmas” (Macklin, 2003). I am inclined to agree with Macklin here, because it appears that

Over the last several decades there have been dramatic developments in Western medical ethics. The form of bioethics now widely adhered to in the United States is 'principlism', an approach originally advocated by the American philosophers Beauchamp and Childress. Principlism argues that in medico-ethical dilemmas, including end of life healthcare situations, ethical principles must be applied (Kessel & Meran, 1998). The following ethical principles are related to advance directives: respect for autonomy (self-determination), non-maleficence (not inflicting harm), beneficence (doing good), and justice (some concept of fairness) (Kessel & Meran, 1998). The leading principle, Autonomy, is the fundamental standard that safeguards a patient the liberty to choose and to govern what happens to their person, in so far as those choices do not harm others. “Autonomy implies that people have an inherent right to make treatment decisions and should be active participants in their own care.” (Kessel

Beneficence states that "the actions one takes should promote good." This principle was used in the care given by the nurse to continue with all measures to promote the comfort of the patient as well as talking with the family. Nonmaleficence states that "one should do no harm." The nurse performed all activities to try and provide comfort and dignity to the patient even with the knowledge of the grim prognosis. Autonomy is doing what the patient would wish to be done and paternalism is decisions being made for one person by another. Autonomy was in a way not upheld since the family had voiced that the patient would not want to live in this way, but the resuscitative effort was necessitated by law since there was no DNR order written by the doctor (Yoder-Wise, 2003).

According to (Jane, 2011), justice can be referred to as ensuring there is an allocation of resources as well as determining the order in which patients should be treated.

First is the principal of beneficence which “requires nurses to act in ways that benefit patients” (Burkhardt, 2014, p.69). This principle tells us that one should promote good, prevent harm and remove evil or harm.

The third principle is autonomy; it deals with the ability to practice as a nurse and also it refers to the patient being able to make the decisions they want on their own. The issue is what constitutes good for a patient without infringing on the patient's autonomy or letting the patient come to serious harm.

Everyday, healthcare professionals are faced with ethical dilemmas in their workplace. These ethical dilemmas need to be addressed in order to provide the best care for the patient. Healthcare professionals have to weigh their own personal beliefs, professional beliefs, ethical understandings, and several other factors to decide what the best care for their patient might be. This is illustrated in Mrs. Smith’s case. Mrs. Smith is an 85 year old who has suffered from a large stroke that extends to both of her brains hemispheres which has left her unconscious. She only has some brain stem reflexes and requires a ventilator for support. She is unable to communicate how she wishes to proceed with her healthcare. Mrs. Smith’s children, Sara and Frank have different views regarding their mother’s plan of care. The decision that needs to be made is whether to prolong Mrs. Smith’s life, as Sara would like to do, or stop all treatments and care, as Frank feels his mother would want. In the healthcare field, there are situations similar to this case that happen daily where moral and ethical judgment is necessary to guide the decision that would be best for the patient. The purpose of this paper is to explore and discuss, compare and contrast the personal and professional values, ethical principles, and legal issues regarding Mrs. Smith’s quality of life and further plan of care.

Witcombe, J., & Sanchez, J. (2004). Food systems and security helping the poor cope. Retrieved from http://www.id21.org/health/InsightsHealth5art3.html

Ethics, in medicine, is described as applying one’s morals and values to healthcare decisions (Fremgen 2012). It requires a critical-thinking approach that examines important considerations such as fairness for all patients, the impact of the decision on society and the future repercussions of the decision (Fremgen 2012). According to Fremgen (2012), bioethics concerns ethical issues discussed in the perspective of advanced medical technology. Goldman and Schafer (2012) state bioethical issues that arise in medical practice include antibiotics, dialysis, transplantation, intensive care units, issues of genetics, reproductive choices and termination of care. In clinical practice the most common issues revolve around informed consent, termination of life-sustaining treatments, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, and conflicts of interest (Goldman, Schafer 2012).

There are four commonly accepted principles of bioethics. The first is the principle of respect for autonomy. Respect for autonomy is a respect for the client to make informed and intentional decisions, provided that the client is judged to be capable of doing so. This principle is the base for the practice of informed consent as well as the right to accept or refuse treatment. The client is to be able to make a rational, informed decision, without any external factors influencing any decisions. This principle may cause what the health care professional perceives to be harm, but to the client, like a muslim client refusing to have a xenotransplantation from a pig, accepting the treatment would cause him to suffer