Search results for 'Beneficence' (try it on Scholar)

437 found
Sort by:
  1. Rebecca Bennett (2009). The Fallacy of the Principle of Procreative Beneficence. Bioethics 23 (5):265-273.score: 24.0
    The claim that we have a moral obligation, where a choice can be made, to bring to birth the 'best' child possible, has been highly controversial for a number of decades. More recently Savulescu has labelled this claim the Principle of Procreative Beneficence. It has been argued that this Principle is problematic in both its reasoning and its implications, most notably in that it places lower moral value on the disabled. Relentless criticism of this proposed moral obligation, however, has (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. S. Andrew Schroeder (forthcoming). Imperfect Duties, Group Obligations, and Beneficence. Journal of Moral Philosophy.score: 24.0
    There is virtually no philosophical consensus on what, exactly, imperfect duties are. In this paper, I lay out three criteria which I argue any adequate account of imperfect duties should satisfy. Using beneficence as a leading example, I suggest that existing accounts of imperfect duties will have trouble meeting those criteria. I then propose a new approach: thinking of imperfect duties as duties held by groups, rather than individuals. I show, again using the example of beneficence, that this (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. J. Paul Kelleher (forthcoming). Beneficence, Justice, and Health Care. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal.score: 24.0
    This paper argues that societal duties of health promotion are underwritten (at least in large part) by a principle of beneficence. Further, this principle generates duties of justice that correlate with rights, not merely “imperfect” duties of charity or generosity. To support this argument, I draw on a useful distinction from bioethics and on a somewhat neglected approach to social obligation from political philosophy. The distinction is that between general and specific beneficence; and the approach from political philosophy (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Jakob Elster (2011). Procreative Beneficence – Cui Bono? Bioethics 25 (9):482-488.score: 24.0
    Recently, Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane have defended the Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PB), according to which prospective parents ought to select children with the view that their future child has ‘the best chance of the best life’. I argue that the arguments Savulescu and Kahane adduce in favour of PB equally well support what I call the Principle of General Procreative Beneficence (GPB). GPB states that couples ought to select children in view of maximizing the overall expected (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Karen Stohr (2011). Kantian Beneficence and the Problem of Obligatory Aid. Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (1):45-67.score: 24.0
    Common sense tells us that in certain circumstances, helping someone is morally obligatory. That intuition appears incompatible with Kant's account of beneficence as a wide imperfect duty, and its implication that agents may exercise latitude over which beneficent actions to perform. In this paper, I offer a resolution to the problem from which it follows that some opportunities to help admit latitude and others do not. I argue that beneficence has two components: the familiar wide duty to help (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Dale Dorsey (2009). Aggregation, Partiality, and the Strong Beneficence Principle. Philosophical Studies 146 (1):139 - 157.score: 24.0
    Consider the Strong Beneficence Principle (SBP): Persons of affluent means ought to give to those who might fail basic human subsistence until the point at which they must give up something of comparable moral importance. This principle has been the subject of much recent discussion. In this paper, I argue that no coherent interpretation of SBP can be found. SBP faces an interpretive trilemma, each horn of which should be unacceptable to fans of SBP; SBP is either (a) so (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Andrew Hotke (2014). The Principle of Procreative Beneficence: Old Arguments and A New Challenge. Bioethics 28 (5):255-262.score: 24.0
    In the last ten years, there have been a number of attempts to refute Julian Savulescu's Principle of Procreative Beneficence; a principle which claims that parents have a moral obligation to have the best child that they can possibly have. So far, no arguments against this principle have succeeded at refuting it. This paper tries to explain the shortcomings of some of the more notable arguments against this principle. I attempt to break down the argument for the principle and (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Nora Jacobson & Diego Silva (2010). Dignity Promotion and Beneficence. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7 (4):365-372.score: 24.0
    The concept of dignity has occasioned a robust conversation in recent healthcare scholarship. When viewed as a whole, research on dignity in healthcare has engaged each of the four bioethical principles popularized by Beauchamp and Childress, but has paid the least attention to beneficence. In this paper, we look at dignity and beneficence. We focus on the dignity promotion component of a model of dignity derived from a grounded theory study. After describing the study and presenting a précis (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Rebecca Bennett (2014). When Intuition is Not Enough. Why the Principle of Procreative Beneficence Must Work Much Harder to Justify Its Eugenic Vision. Bioethics 28 (9):447-455.score: 24.0
    The Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PPB) claims that we have a moral obligation, where choice is possible, to choose to create the best child we can. The existence of this moral obligation has been proposed by John Harris and Julian Savulescu and has proved controversial on many levels, not least that it is eugenics, asking us to produce the best children we can, not for the sake of that child's welfare, but in order to make a better society. These (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Diego S. Silva (2010). Dignity Promotion and Beneficence. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7 (4):365-372.score: 24.0
    The concept of dignity has occasioned a robust conversation in recent healthcare scholarship. When viewed as a whole, research on dignity in healthcare has engaged each of the four bioethical principles popularized by Beauchamp and Childress, but has paid the least attention to beneficence. In this paper, we look at dignity and beneficence. We focus on the dignity promotion component of a model of dignity derived from a grounded theory study. After describing the study and presenting a précis (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Lisa Rivera (2011). Harmful Beneficence. Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (2):197-222.score: 24.0
    Beneficence is usually regarded as adequate when it results in an actual benefit for a beneficiary and satisfies her self-chosen end. However, beneficence that satisfies these conditions can harm beneficiaries' free agency, particularly when they are robustly dependent on benefactors. First, the means that benefactors choose can have undesirable side-effects on resources that beneficiaries need for future free action. Second, benefactors may undermine beneficiaries' ability to freely deliberate and choose. It is therefore insufficient to satisfy someone's self-chosen ends. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Samuel Mansell (2013). Shareholder Theory and Kant's 'Duty of Beneficence'. Journal of Business Ethics 117 (3):583-599.score: 24.0
    This article draws on the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant to explore whether a corporate ‘duty of beneficence’ to non-shareholders is consistent with the orthodox ‘shareholder theory’ of the firm. It examines the ethical framework of Milton Friedman’s argument and asks whether it necessarily rules out the well-being of non-shareholders as a corporate objective. The article examines Kant’s distinction between ‘duties of right’ and ‘duties of virtue’ (the latter including the duty of beneficence) and investigates their consistency with (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. John E. Atwell (1995). Fallacies in Two Objections to Kant's First Defense of the Duty of Beneficence in the Grundlegung. Argumentation 9 (4):633-643.score: 24.0
    The two best known objections to Kant's first defense of the duty of beneficence are examined and found to be fallacious. The first objection relies on the possibility of imagining an individual who would be willing for the maxim of nonbeneficence to be a universal law (but it fails to recognize that such an individual is not a rational person and thus not subject to morality at all); and the second objection, while granting the nonuniversalizability of the maxim of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Robert M. Sade (2001). Autonomy and Beneficence in an Information Age. Health Care Analysis 9 (3):247-254.score: 21.0
  15. Saleema Gulzar & Rozina Karmaliani (2012). Sexual Abuse: An Ethical Dilemma of Autonomy Vs. Beneficence and Role of Health Professionals in Community Setting. Asian Bioethics Review 4 (3).score: 21.0
    Nurses and doctors who deal with human lives have started questioning their own decisions and practices particularly when there is an ethical dilemma. To survive competently within the profession and to make ethical decisions for the client’s safety, one needs to be equipped with knowledge pertaining to Bio-Ethics. This paper brings attention to a real life dilemma of a sixteen year old female child who had been sexually abused by one of her family friends. She insisted the school health nurse (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Edmund D. Pellegrino (1988). For the Patient's Good: The Restoration of Beneficence in Health Care. Oxford University Press.score: 18.0
    In this companion volume to their 1981 work, A Philosophical Basis of Medical Practice, Pellegrino and Thomasma examine the principle of beneficence and its role in the practice of medicine. Their analysis, which is grounded in a thorough-going philosophy of medicine, addresses a wide array of practical and ethical concerns that are a part of health care decision-making today. Among these issues are the withdrawing and withholding of nutrition and hydration, competency assessment, the requirements for valid surrogate decision-making, quality-of-life (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Thaddeus Metz (2010). For the Sake of the Friendship: Relationality and Relationship as Grounds of Beneficence. Theoria 57 (4):54-76.score: 18.0
    I contend that there are important moral reasons for individuals, organisations and states to aid others that have gone largely unrecognised in the literature. Most of the acknowledged reasons for acting beneficently in the absence of a promise to do so are either impartial and intrinsic, on the one hand, being grounded in properties internal to and universal among individuals, such as their pleasure or autonomy, or partial and extrinsic, on the other, being grounded in non-universal properties regarding an actual (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Peter Herissone-Kelly (2011). Wrongs, Preferences, and the Selection of Children: A Critique of Rebecca Bennett's Argument Against the Principle of Procreative Beneficence. Bioethics 26 (8):447-454.score: 18.0
    Rebecca Bennett, in a recent paper dismissing Julian Savulescu's principle of procreative beneficence, advances both a negative and a positive thesis. The negative thesis holds that the principle's theoretical foundation – the notion of impersonal harm or non-person-affecting wrong – is indefensible. Therefore, there can be no obligations of the sort that the principle asserts. The positive thesis, on the other hand, attempts to plug an explanatory gap that arises once the principle has been rejected. That is, it holds (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Stephen Wear & Jonathan D. Moreno (1994). Informed Consent: Patient Autonomy and Physician Beneficence Within Clinical Medicine. [REVIEW] HEC Forum 6 (5):323-325.score: 18.0
    Substantial efforts have recently been made to reform the physician-patient relationship, particularly toward replacing the `silent world of doctor and patient' with informed patient participation in medical decision-making. This 'new ethos of patient autonomy' has especially insisted on the routine provision of informed consent for all medical interventions. Stronly supported by most bioethicists and the law, as well as more popular writings and expectations, it still seems clear that informed consent has, at best, been received in a lukewarm fashion by (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Leonard M. Fleck (1989). Just Health Care (I): Is Beneficence Enough? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 10 (2).score: 18.0
    Few in our society believe that access to health care should be determined primarily by ability to pay. We believe instead that society has an obligation to assure access to adequate health care for all. This is the view explicitly endorsed in the President's Commission Report Securing Access to Health Care. But there is an important moral ambiguity here, for this obligation may be construed as being either beneficence-based or justice-based. A beneficience-based construal would yield a much weaker (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Melissa Stobie & Catherine Slack (2010). Treatment Needs in Hiv Prevention Trials: Using Beneficence to Clarify Sponsor-Investigator Responsibilities. Developing World Bioethics 10 (3):150-157.score: 18.0
    Some participants will get HIV-infected in HIV prevention trials, despite risk reduction measures. The subsequent treatment responsibilities of sponsor-investigators have been widely debated, especially where access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) is not available. In this paper, we explore two accounts of beneficence to establish whether they can shed light on sponsor-investigator responsibilities. We find the notion of general beneficence helpful insofar as it clarifies that some beneficent actions will be obligatory where they can be dispensed without scuppering the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Joan C. Callahan (1984). Liberty, Beneficence, and Involuntary Confinement. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (3):261-294.score: 18.0
    My purpose in this paper is to show that current legal criteria for paternalistic involuntary psychiatric confinement of the mentally ill are both too narrow and too broad. I do this by first developing a principle of justified paternalistic interference with adults, which I take to be acceptably protective of individual liberty, but which does not require unnecessary sacrifices of individual welfare. After offering an analysis of current legal criteria for involuntary confinement, 1 argue that an acceptable theory of paternalistic (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Lisa Campo-Engelstein (2014). Paternal-Fetal Harm and Men's Moral Duty to Use Contraception: Applying the Principles of Nonmaleficence and Beneficence to Men's Reproductive Responsibility. Medicine Studies 4 (1-4):1-13.score: 18.0
    Discussions of reproductive responsibility generally draw heavily upon the principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence. However, these principles are typically only applied to women due to the incorrect belief that only women can cause fetal harm. The cultural perception that women are likely to cause fetal and child harm is reflected in numerous social norms, policies, and laws. Conversely, there is little public discussion of men and fetal and child harm, which implies that men do not (or cannot) cause such (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. J. Adam Carter & Emma C. Gordon (2013). Intelligence, Wellbeing and Procreative Beneficence. Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (2):122-135.score: 18.0
    If Savulescu's (2001, 2009) controversial principle of Procreative Beneficence (PB) is correct, then an important implication is that couples should employ genetic tests for non-disease traits in selecting which child to bring into existence. Both defenders as well as some critics of this normative entailment of PB have typically accepted the comparatively less controversial claim about non-disease traits: that there are non-disease traits such that testing and selecting for them would in fact contribute to bringing about the child who (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. D. L. Denny & G. W. Guido (2012). Undertreatment of Pain in Older Adults: An Application of Beneficence. Nursing Ethics 19 (6):800-809.score: 18.0
    Inadequate pain control, especially in older adults, remains a significant issue when caring for this population. Older adults, many of whom experience multiple acute and chronic conditions, are especially vulnerable to having their pain seriously underassessed and inadequately treated. Nurses have an ethical obligation to appropriately treat patients’ pain. To fulfill their ethical obligation to relieve pain in older patients, nurses often need to advocate on their behalf. This article provides an overview of the persistent problem of undertreated pain in (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Hans-Martin Sass (1983). Justice, Beneficence, or Common Sense?: The President's Commission's Report on Access to Health Care. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8 (4):381-388.score: 18.0
    The President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research published in March of 1983 its Report, Securing Access to Health Care: The Ethical Implications of Differences in the Availability of Health Services . Concluding that there are "ethical obligations" on behalf of society which are balanced by individual obligations, the Report provides an ethical framework for ensuring "ultimate responsibility" of the Federal government to arrange for equitable access to health and to a fair (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Howard Mann (2002). Therapeutic Beneficence and Patient Recruitment in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials. American Journal of Bioethics 2 (2):35 – 36.score: 18.0
    (2002). Therapeutic Beneficence and Patient Recruitment in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 35-36.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. W. A. Rogers (1999). Beneficence in General Practice: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (5):388-393.score: 18.0
    OBJECTIVES: To study and report the attitudes of patients and general practitioners (GPs) concerning the obligation of doctors to act for the good of their patients, and to provide a practical account of beneficence in general practice. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews administered to GPs and patients. SETTING AND SAMPLE: Participants randomly recruited from an age and gender stratified list of GPs in a geographically defined region of South Australia. The sample comprised twenty-one general practitioners and seventeen patients recruited by participating (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. L. A. Jansen (2013). Between Beneficence and Justice: The Ethics of Stewardship in Medicine. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (1):50-63.score: 16.0
    In an era of rapidly rising health care costs, physicians and policymakers are searching for new and effective ways to contain health care spending without sacrificing the quality of services provided. These proposals are increasingly articulated in terms of an ethical duty of stewardship. The duty of stewardship in medicine, however, is not at present well understood, and it is frequently conflated with other duties. This article presents a critical analysis of the notion of stewardship, which shows that it has (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Robert Sparrow (2007). Procreative Beneficence, Obligation, and Eugenics. Genomics, Society and Policy 3 (3):43-59.score: 15.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Julian Savulescu (2001). Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. Bioethics 15 (5-6):413-426.score: 15.0
    We have a reason to use information which is available about such genes in our reproductive decision-making; (3) couples should selec.
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Liam B. Murphy (1993). The Demands of Beneficence. Philosophy and Public Affairs 22 (4):267-292.score: 15.0
    Principles of bcnciiccnce require us to promote the good. If we believe that a plausible mom] conception will contain some such principle, we must address the issue of the demands it imposes on agents. Some writers have defended extremely demanding principles, while others have argued that only principles with limited demands are acceptable. In this paper I su ggest that we 100k at the demands 0f beneficencc in a different way; 0ur concern should not just be with the extent of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Chris Meyers (2004). Wrongful Beneficence: Exploitation and Third World Sweatshops. Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (3):319–333.score: 15.0
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Tom Beauchamp, The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 15.0
  35. Richard Arneson, Moral Limits on the Demands of Beneficence?score: 15.0
    If you came upon a small child drowning in a pond, you ought to save the child even at considerable cost and risk to yourself. In 1972 Peter Singer observed that inhabitants of affluent industrialized societies stand in exactly the same relationship to the millions of poor inhabitants of poor undeveloped societies that you would stand to the small child drowning in the example just given. Given that you ought to help the drowning child, by parity of reasoning we ought (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Kyla Ebels‐Duggan (2008). Against Beneficence: A Normative Account of Love. Ethics 119 (1):142-170.score: 15.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Richard W. Miller (2004). Beneficence, Duty and Distance. Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (4):357–383.score: 15.0
    According to Peter Singer, virtually all of us would be forced by adequate reflection on our own convictions to embrace a radical conclusion about giving. The following principle, he says, is “surely undeniable” -- at least once we reflect on secure convictions concerning rescue, as in his famous case of the drowning toddler.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Robert Noggle (2009). Give Till It Hurts? Beneficence, Imperfect Duties, and a Moderate Response to the Aid Question. Journal of Social Philosophy 40 (1):1-16.score: 15.0
  39. Frank Arntzenius & David McCarthy (1997). Self Torture and Group Beneficence. Erkenntnis 47 (1):129-144.score: 15.0
    Moral puzzles about actions which bring about very small or what are said to be imperceptible harms or benefits for each of a large number of people are well known. Less well known is an argument by Warren Quinn that standard theories of rationality can lead an agent to end up torturing himself or herself in a completely foreseeable way, and that this shows that standard theories of rationality need to be revised. We show where Quinn's argument goes wrong, and (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. J. Savulescu (2007). In Defence of Procreative Beneficence. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (5):284-288.score: 15.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. William K. Frankena (1987). Beneficence/Benevolence. Social Philosophy and Policy 4 (02):1-.score: 15.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Liam B. Murphy (1997). A Relatively Plausible Principle of Beneficence: Reply to Mulgan. Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (1):80–86.score: 15.0
  43. Edmund D. Pellegrino (1992). Beneficence, Scientific Autonomy, and Self-Interest: Ethical Dilemmas in Clinical Research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1 (04):361-.score: 15.0
  44. Michael Otsuka (1991). The Paradox of Group Beneficence. Philosophy and Public Affairs 20 (2):132-149.score: 15.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. P. Herissone-Kelly (2006). Procreative Beneficence and the Prospective Parent. Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (3):166-169.score: 15.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Paul Hurley (2003). Fairness and Beneficence. Ethics 113 (4):841-864.score: 15.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Kean Birch (2005). Beneficence, Determinism and Justice: An Engagement with the Argument for the Genetic Selection of Intelligence. Bioethics 19 (1):12–28.score: 15.0
  48. Tom Dougherty (2013). Aggregation, Beneficence and Chance. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 7 (2):1-19.score: 15.0
  49. Terrence F. Ackerman (2002). Therapeutic Beneficence and Placebo Controls. American Journal of Bioethics 2 (2):21 – 22.score: 15.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Matthew Hanser (1998). A Puzzle About Beneficence. Analysis 58 (2):159–165.score: 15.0
    No categories
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 437