Empirical investigation of the ethical reasoning of physicians and molecular biologists – the importance of the four principles of biomedical ethics
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2 (1):23- (2007)
BackgroundThis study presents an empirical investigation of the ethical reasoning and ethical issues at stake in the daily work of physicians and molecular biologists in Denmark. The aim of this study was to test empirically whether there is a difference in ethical considerations and principles between Danish physicians and Danish molecular biologists, and whether the bioethical principles of the American bioethicists Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress are applicable to these groups.MethodThis study is based on 12 semi-structured interviews with three groups of respondents: a group of oncology physicians working in a clinic at a public hospital and two groups of molecular biologists conducting basic research, one group employed at a public university and the other in a private biopharmaceutical company.ResultsIn this sample, the authors found that oncology physicians and molecular biologists employed in a private biopharmaceutical company have the specific principle of beneficence in mind in their daily work. Both groups are motivated to help sick patients. According to the study, molecular biologists explicitly consider nonmaleficence in relation to the environment, the researchers' own health, and animal models; and only implicitly in relation to patients or human subjects. In contrast, considerations of nonmaleficence by oncology physicians relate to patients or human subjects. Physicians and molecular biologists both consider the principle of respect for autonomy as a negative obligation in the sense that informed consent of patients should be respected. However, in contrast to molecular biologists, physicians experience the principle of respect for autonomy as a positive obligation as the physician, in dialogue with the patient, offers a medical prognosis based upon the patients wishes and ideas, mutual understanding, and respect. Finally, this study discloses utilitarian characteristics in the overall conception of justice as conceived by oncology physicians and molecular biologists from the private biopharmaceutical company. Molecular biologists employed at a public university are, in this study, concerned with allocation, however, they do not propose a specific theory of justice.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that each of the four bioethical principles of the American bioethicists Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childress – respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice – are reflected in the daily work of physicians and molecular biologists in Denmark. Consequently, these principles are applicable in the Danish biomedical setting
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Markus Christen, Christian Ineichen & Carmen Tanner (2014). How “Moral” Are the Principles of Biomedical Ethics? – a Cross-Domain Evaluation of the Common Morality Hypothesis. BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):47.
Similar books and articles
Birthe D. Pedersen (2008). The Role of Ethics in the Daily Work of Oncology Physicians and Molecular Biologists—Results of an Empirical Study. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 27 (1/4):75-101.
Mette Ebbesen & Birthe D. Pedersen (2008). The Principle of Respect for Autonomy – Concordant with the Experience of Oncology Physicians and Molecular Biologists in Their Daily Work? BMC Medical Ethics 9 (1):5.
Baljinder Sahdra & Paul Thagard (2003). Procedural Knowledge in Molecular Biology. Philosophical Psychology 16 (4):477 – 498.
Joel B. Hagen (1999). Naturalists, Molecular Biologists, and the Challenges of Molecular Evolution. Journal of the History of Biology 32 (2):321 - 341.
P. Herissone-Kelly (2011). Determining the Common Morality's Norms in the Sixth Edition of Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (10):584-587.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2011). Approximations, Idealizations and 'Experiments' at the Physics-Biology Interface. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (2):145-154.
Norman G. Vinson & Janice A. Singer (2008). A Practical Guide to Ethical Research Involving Humans. In Cogprints.
Ronald J. Christie (1986). Ethical Issues in Family Medicine. Oxford University Press.
Alexander Powell & John Dupré (2009). From Molecules to Systems: The Importance of Looking Both Ways. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40 (1):54-64.
Lindley Darden & Michael Cook (1994). Reasoning Strategies in Molecular Biology: Abstractions, Scans and Anomalies. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:179 - 191.
Domènec Melé (2005). Ethical Education in Accounting: Integrating Rules, Values and Virtues. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 57 (1):97 - 109.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-08-24
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?