In the class video, Sohin Chhatrala (2013) instructs that non-maleficence means “First, do no harm” and Roberta Carrol (2009) provides a similar definition in our text book as “avoiding harm” (p. 603). In Chapter 8, Carroll further explains that non-maleficence not only “asserts an obligation to prevent harm… [but also] if risks of harm must be taken, to minimize those risks” (Carroll, 2009, p. 263). Non-maleficence would include ensuring that patients receive appropriate treatments and would prevent any treatments from occurring that were unnecessary, incompetent, or aggressive (Maggio, J., 2015)
Chhatrala (2013) expresses that the four basic principles of ethics are patient autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The four principles …show more content…
Even though, “No trial provides a better basis for… causes of evil does than the Nuremberg trials… What is shocking… is the ordinariness of the defendants… most Nuremberg defendants never aspired to be villains…” (Linder, 2017). Even more shocking, although, “Ethicists have since expounded on the moral lessons to be learned from the Nuremberg Trials. So, obvious these moral lessons seem now, and so gross the malfeasance, that it seems redundant to revisit them” (Pellegrino, 1997), the ethicists were wrong because the atrocities of Nuremberg did not stop atrocities from ever reoccurring. Following Nuremberg atrocities such as “the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the Willow Brook Hepatitis Study, U.S. radiation experiments, the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Study, the lysergic acid study supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, and others” have all occurred (Pellegrino, 1997). The problem may be due to an overexaggerated use of utilitarianism. The goal may be to have a good outcome, but researchers and physicians must never forget non-maleficence and should always first, consider the harm. “‘Non-maleficence’ relates to the theme of ‘Motivations’… because it poses the moral objection that the use of another human being as a means to an end is unacceptable, even if the end is legitimate…” (Sher, 2011). To prevent harm there must be a balance of ethics and the principles of proportionality must always
Chhatrala (2013) expresses that the four basic principles of ethics are patient autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The four principles …show more content…
Even though, “No trial provides a better basis for… causes of evil does than the Nuremberg trials… What is shocking… is the ordinariness of the defendants… most Nuremberg defendants never aspired to be villains…” (Linder, 2017). Even more shocking, although, “Ethicists have since expounded on the moral lessons to be learned from the Nuremberg Trials. So, obvious these moral lessons seem now, and so gross the malfeasance, that it seems redundant to revisit them” (Pellegrino, 1997), the ethicists were wrong because the atrocities of Nuremberg did not stop atrocities from ever reoccurring. Following Nuremberg atrocities such as “the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the Willow Brook Hepatitis Study, U.S. radiation experiments, the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Study, the lysergic acid study supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, and others” have all occurred (Pellegrino, 1997). The problem may be due to an overexaggerated use of utilitarianism. The goal may be to have a good outcome, but researchers and physicians must never forget non-maleficence and should always first, consider the harm. “‘Non-maleficence’ relates to the theme of ‘Motivations’… because it poses the moral objection that the use of another human being as a means to an end is unacceptable, even if the end is legitimate…” (Sher, 2011). To prevent harm there must be a balance of ethics and the principles of proportionality must always