LEARN MORE...

Home
Documents
December 2021
7
Phi 413v week 3 discussion question 1 and 2 v1

Phi 413v week 3 discussion question 1 and 2 v1

Content type

User Generated

Uploaded By

Thvqr4Fghqragf

Pages

Showing Page:

1/5

PHI 413V Week 3 Discussion Question 1 and 2

Topic 3 DQ 1

Principalism, especially in the context of bioethics in the United States, has often been

critiqued for raising the principle of autonomy to the highest place, such that it trumps all

other principles or values. How would you rank the importance of each of the four

principles? How do you believe they would be ordered in the context of the Christian

biblical narrative? Refer to the lecture and topic readings in your response.

Principalism is an ethics system based on the four moral principles of beneficence, justice,

autonomy, and non-maleficence (Beauchamp and DeGrazia, 2004). It is asserted that all cultures

are infused with a common core drawn from the four cardinal principles that organize

principalism. Bioethics encompasses a whole political movement seeking to harness political

forces in the process of dealing with a plethora of ethical issues relating to health care. Bioethics

as Smith (2013), describes predominantly focused on respect for the person in the research site

and autonomy in a clinical setting, emphasizing freedom of choice and self-determination. Due

to this emphasis, there has been a creation of a moral vacuum and a thin conception of justice.

Each of the four principles has a significant role in every aspect meaning that autonomy cannot

always be the superior of the four principles.

I would rank the principle of beneficence as the first as it promotes benefits to the patients. The

principle of beneficence implies doing what is good (Beauchamp and DeGrazia, 2004)). By

good, it means that health care providers have an obligation to be of benefit to their patients and

take positive actions to remove and prevent harm to the patients. The second principle would be

that of justice as it implies a fair distribution of benefits and burdens looking at the role of

entitlement. The principle of justice defined as a form of fairness implies the fair distribution of

benefits and burdens (Smith, 2013). The third would be the principle of autonomy in which has

been ranked first in most biomedical ethics. Finally is the principle of non-maleficence. The

principle of non-maleficence implies that people should not intentionally create an injury to the

patients through their actions (Beauchamp and DeGrazia, 2004). They should, therefore, provide

a proper standard of care that minimizes the risk of harm. As can be seen, each has its relevance

in the appraisal of ethics but in a Christian setting, the arrangement or prioritization may differ

from that of the biomedical ethics.

According to the Christian Biblical narratives, the principles would be ordered in a manner

which the principle of justice would be the first as they believe justice brings balance in all other

things. The second in order would be the principle of non-maleficence followed by that of

beneficence, and finally the principle of autonomy.

References

Showing Page:

2/5

Beauchamp, T.L., and DeGrazia, D. (2004). “Principles and principalism” in philosophy and

medicine Vol.78. Handbook of bioethics: Taking stock of the field from a

philosophical perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Smith, G. P. (2013). Applying Bioethics in the 21st Century: Principlism or Situationism.

J. Contemp. Health L. & Policy, 30, 37. 4 .

Response 1

In the case of passive euthanasia, it is never okay to withhold treatment and allow a patient

to die. Taking any direct action designed to kill the patient is never permissible (Rachels,

2010). Passive euthanasia can involve turning off respirators, halting medications,

discontinuing food and water so the patient dies because of dehydration or starvation. For

example, giving the patient large doses of morphine to control pain in spite of the

likelihood that the painkiller can cause fatal respiratory problems. Furthermore, if a patient

is already receiving life-saving treatment and a doctor must actively terminate it by, for

example, pulling out tubes, an act rather than an omission is required to terminate aid, yet,

I consider this passive euthanasia.

Reference

Rachels J. (2010). Active and passive euthanasia. N Engl J Med; 11 (5): 641–3.

Response 2

Thank you for your perspective on the topic of principalism and bioethics. The authors

Beauchamp and Childress refute the traditional models of moral justification, top-down and

bottom-up. Meaning, ethical theories do not have a straight forward application to concrete

moral decisions. When there is a conflict between different normative reasons, assessing what

one ought to do is a reflective process of justification through which a certain moral perspective

gains “weight” (Mihailov, 2013). The author says that they are no hierarchy in ranking them.

With regards to normative resuppositions, principlism assumes a normative framework based on

the four moral principles extracted from common morality. These principles are central to the

practice of medical ethics.

Reference

Mihailov, E. (2013). Intuitive Methods of Moral Decision Making, A Philosophical Plea.

Retrieved from https://philpapers.org/archive/MIHIMO.pdf

Response 3

Dr. Meyer,

Thank you for your question and article. I was not able to read the full article, however, I believe

that justice provides order to human relationships by laying out reciprocal sets of rights and

duties for those living in the context of community. Hill, )1997) asserts that, two fundamental

personal rights are the right to be treated with dignity and the right to exercise free will. The

duties or responsibilities, which are really the flip side of the justice coin, require that we treat

others in ways that offer them these rights. Today the principles of social justice often impact

Showing Page:

3/5

End of Preview - Want to read all 5 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

PHI 413V Week 3 Discussion Question 1 and 2 Topic 3 DQ 1 Principalism, especially in the context of bioethics in the United States, has often been critiqued for raising the principle of autonomy to the highest place, such that it trumps all other principles or values. How would you rank the importance of each of the four principles? How do you believe they would be ordered in the context of the Christian biblical narrative? Refer to the lecture and topic readings in your response. Principalism is an ethics system based on the four moral principles of beneficence, justice, autonomy, and non-maleficence (Beauchamp and DeGrazia, 2004). It is asserted that all cultures are infused with a common core drawn from the four cardinal principles that organize principalism. Bioethics encompasses a whole political movement seeking to harness political forces in the process of dealing with a plethora of ethical issues relating to health care. Bioethics as Smith (2013), describes predominantly focused on respect for the person in the research site and autonomy in a clinical setting, emphasizing freedom of choice and self-determination. Due to this emphasis, there has been a creation of a moral vacuum and a thin conception of justice. Each of the four principles has a significant role in every aspect meaning that autonomy cannot always be the superior of the four principles. I would rank the principle of beneficence as the first as it promotes benefits to the patients. The principle of benef ...
Purchase document to see full attachment