BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS
Ethical is an adjective that pertains to dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to what is right and wrong or being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession.
There are four fundamental ethical principles.
The Principle of Respect for autonomy: Autonomy is Latin for “self-rule”. We have an obligation to respect decision made by patients with regards to their own lives. This is also called the principle of human dignity. It gives us the duty not to interfere with decisions of competent adults and empower others whom we’re responsible. They are allowed to refuse surgeries, drugs, treatments to their wishes. People have the right to control what happens to their bodies. These decisions needs to be respected even though they aren’t in the best interest of the patient.
Corollary principles: honesty in our dealings with others & obligation to keep promises.
- The Principle of Beneficence We have an obligation to bring about good in all our actions. We have to strive to improve patients’ health and do good for the patient in every situation.
Corollary principle: We as health care practitioner take positive steps to prevent harm. Adopting to corollary principles however frequently places us in direct conflict with respecting the autonomy of other persons.
- The Principle of nonmaleficence Non-maleficence is a legal term which means that one did not intend to harm. We have an obligation not to harm others. “First, do no harm”, is the rock of medical ethics.
Corollary principle: Where harm cannot be avoided, we are obligated to minimize the harm we do, don’t increase the risk of harm to others, it is wrong to waste resources that could be used for good. The doctrine of double effects should be taken into consideration. It is when a treatment intended for good unintentionally causes harm. This doctrine helps you make difficult decisions about whether actions with double effects can be undertaken.
Combining beneficence and nonmaleficence: Each action must produce more good than harm.
- The Principle of justice
We have an obligation to provide others with what they deserve. In public life, we have an obligation to treat all people equally, fairly, and impartially. Decisions should be justified in every situation. - Corollary principle: Impose no unfair burdens.Combining beneficence and justice: We are obligated to work for the benefit of those who are unfairly treated.
Working in clinical practice you occasionally come in contact with patients who refuses treatment. The principle of respect of autonomy comes into place here as patients does have the right to refuse treatment even though we as health care practitioners don’t agree or know what the negative impact of refusing treatment would be.
During a clinical block I saw a student treating a patient against his will. He was shouting and didn’t want to participate at all. The student continued to try and treat this patient and tried to calm the patient. During this scenario the principle of respect of autonomy was broken. The patient refused treatment and has the right to do so, even though the student intention was to help or not to do harm, the student was wrong in not respecting the patient’s rights.
Even though refusing treatment was not in the best interest of the patient, the patient’s wishes needs to be respected. They patient gets to choose what happens to his/her body.
RESOURCES
- Runzheimer,J; Johnson Larsen,L. (n.d). Basic principles of medical ethics). Retrieved 07 October 2018 from https://www.dummies.com/health/basic-principles-of-medical-ethics/
- Gracyk,T. (2012). Four fundamental ethical principles. Retrieved 07 October 2018 from http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/Four_Basic_principles.htm
4 thoughts on “Basic principles of ethics”
Dearest Alyssa,
I enjoyed reading your piece as it is very informative. With regards to the clinical scenario, patients sometimes refuse treatment and as you said they have the right to do so. However, sometimes we do not know why they refuse treatment and we cannot decide/say whether their reasons are valid or not. It is not our place right? But perhaps the patient had a good reason for refusing treatment and whether we know the reason or not, and despite its ‘validity’, it should be respected.
I do suggest you use intext referencing so that the reader knows which information comes from which author/s. In the event of a reader wishing to read more on a certain area you wrote about, they would know exactly which article the information that interests them came from. It would also help me (and other readers) to determine which parts of this post is your own idea or opinion of the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice and which ideas were influenced by the relevant literature.
I know that we are meant to post professionally and objectively but I think a bit of personal opinion on the topic at hand is useful to incorporate.
I hope this feedback helps your future posts!
Best regards,
Kristen.
I would also suggest interpreting the lirerature that you have summarised. What sense do you make of it? What does this information mean to you etc.
Hi Alyssa
I like that you started your ethics piece with the definition of your topic however it might be nice to add in the reference of where you obtained this information so that the audience may see that this information is legitimate.
Again I like the topic you choice and the content of your written piece however you have not intext referenced any of your information so me as an audience member does not know which information you have gotten from the resource you have provided. You could also read up a bit on (Nienaber & Bailey, 2016) as one of our colleagues has used this resource and it was quite informative. This may also be a great way for you to compare the two literature.
Although I do understand your point about the student who basically forced the patient to participate in the session, we must take into account that perhaps he was a respiratory patient and he was a priority patient. She might have known this patient longer and picked up that he is a “chancer” meaning that he just might be of those lazy patients we all experienced before. I do agree with you though that forcing anyone to do something is wrong and perhaps she should have tried educating him first as patients need to understand our intentions and how the treatment will help them.
I see your point in the last two lines but we should maybe also consider those patients who aren’t exactly able to think logically for themselves, in this case the situation may differ entirely. You could read up more about this from (Torrey, 2018). Lastly it might be nice to let the audience know what you learnt from this experience and what you would do different if you were to witness something like his again in future.
REFERNCES:
Nienaber, A & Bailey, K. (2016). The right to physical integrity and informed refusal: Just how far does a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment go? SAJBL, 9 (2). 73-77
Torrey, T. (2018, April 8). Do patients have the right to refuse medical treatment? Retrieved from http://www.verywellhealt.com/do-patients-have-the-right-to- refuse- treatment-2614982
Hi Alyssa
I felt that you outlined the components of your argument very well and created a solid base from where to argue.
I felt you could have weighed up the pros and cons of the situation more thoroughly arguing for both the patient and student and the ethical implications that they may have. You highlight a dilemma that we are faced with as physios in that it is in the patents best interest to receive treatment which can tie into your concept of non maleficence because the student did mean no harm and went out of their way to prevent harm but the patient also has a right to autonomy.
Your solution was to isolate the student and their wrong doings for the violation of autonomy but i felt it was a more complex issue that needed a more complex solution in order to be sustainable and universally applicable