Skip to main content
Log in

The principle of proportionality revisited: interpretations and applications

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The principle of proportionality is used in many different contexts. Some of these uses and contexts are first briefly indicated. This paper focusses on the use of this principle as a moral principle. I argue that under certain conditions the principle of proportionality is helpful as a guide in decision-making. But it needs to be clarified and to be used with some flexibility as a context-dependent principle. Several interpretations of the principle are distinguished, using three conditions as a starting point: importance of objective, relevance of means, and most favourable option. The principle is then tested against an example, which suggests that a fourth condition, focusing on non-excessiveness, needs to be added. I will distinguish between three main interpretations of the principle, some primarily with uses in research ethics, others with uses in other areas of bioethics, for instance in comparisons of therapeutic means and ends. The relations between the principle of proportionality and the precautionary principle are explored in the following section. It is concluded that the principles are different and may even clash. In the next section the principle of proportionality is applied to some medical examples drawn from research ethics and bioethics. In concluding, the status of the principle of proportionality as a moral principle is discussed. What has been achieved so far and what remains to be done is finally summarized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, the principle of proportionality has also been used (Rosenthal 2006) in applications of Bayes’ theorem to problems raised by knowledge and information in situations that are static. Such uses will not be discussed here.

  2. Principle 15 in the Rio Declaration (1993) reads as follows: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

References

  • Allis, C.D., T. Jenuwein, and D. Reinberg (eds.). 2007. Epigenetics. New York: CSHL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. 1960. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell (first published 1789).

  • Boenink, M. 2010. Molecular medicine and concepts of disease: The ethical value of a conceptual analysis of emerging biomedical technologies. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 13: 11–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownsword, R. 2007. Ethical pluralism and the regulation of modern biotechnology. In The impact of biotechnologies on human rights, ed. Francesco Francioni. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, E.J. 1991. The nature of suffering and the goals of medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • EGE. 2000. European group on ethics. Opinion 15. Ethical aspects of stem cell research and use. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • EGE. 2003. European group on ethics. Opinion 17. Opinion on the ethical aspects of clinical research in developing countries. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • EGE. 2009. European group on ethics. Opinion 25. Ethics of synthetic biology. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischhauer, K., and G. Hermerén. 2006. The goals of medicine in the course of history and today. Stockholm: Vitterhetsakademien/Royal Academy of Letters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forge, J. 2009. Proportionality, just war theory and weapons innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 15(1): 25–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P., and N.-E. Sahlin. 1988. Decision, probability, and utility: Selected readings. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhards, J. H. 2011. Proportionality review in European Law. IVR Encyclopaedia of Jurisprudence, Legal Theory and Philosophy of Law. http://ivr-enc.info/index.php?title=Proportionality_review_in_European_law. Accessed 23 May 2011.

  • Hermerén, G. 2008. European values – and others. Europe’s shared values: Towards an ever-closer union? European Review 16(3): 373–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B. 2010. The concept of disease—vague, complex, or just indefinable? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 13: 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S., and J. Harris. 1999. Precautionary principle stifles discovery. Nature 400: 398.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, L.A., and P.L. Sulmasy. 2002. Proportionality, terminal suffering and the restorative goals of medicine. Theoretical Medicine 23: 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchengast, T. 2010. Proportionality in sentencing and the restorative justice paradigm: ‘Just Deserts’ for victims and defendants alike? Criminal Law and Philosophy 4: 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machiavelli, N. 1988. The prince. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moseley, A. 2009. Just war theory. Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar. Accessed 28 Dec 2010.

  • Nordenfelt, L. 1995. On the nature of health. An action-theoretic approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. 2007. Should the precautionary principle guide our actions or our beliefs? Journal of Medical Ethics 33(1): 5–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Poto, M. 2007. The principle of proportionality in comparative perspective. German Law Journal 8(9): 835–870.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quill, T., B. Lo, D.W. Brock. 1997. Palliative care options of last resort. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278; 239:2009–2104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rio declaration on environment and development. 1993. Statement of forest principles: the final text of agreements negotiated by governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). New York: United Nations Department of Public Information.

  • Rosenthal, J.S. 2006. Struck by lightning: The curious world of probabilities. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlin, N.-E. 2011. Unreliable probabilities, paradoxes, and epistemic risk. In Handbook of risk theory, ed. S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, M. Peterson, P. Sandin. New York: Springer (in press).

  • Shapin, S. 1996. The scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. 1993. Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten, C.L. 1987. Crime, guilt and punishment. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tost, J. 2008. Epigenetics. Norwich: Horizon Scientific Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treaty of Amsterdam. 1997. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

  • Weber, M. 1976. The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Allen & Unwin. (First published in German in 1934).

  • WMA. 2008. Declaration of HelsinkiEthical principles for medical research involving human subjects. The latest version so far adopted at the 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul, October 2008 (many earlier versions).

Download references

Acknowledgments

I want to thank Nils-Eric Sahlin, Anna-Sofia Maurin, Johannes Persson and Ingar Brinck for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper as well as two anonymous referees of this journal. I also want to thank Reinhard Merkel who called my attention to the existence of a German court case, which the apple-tree example in certain respects resembles.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Göran Hermerén.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hermerén, G. The principle of proportionality revisited: interpretations and applications. Med Health Care and Philos 15, 373–382 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-011-9360-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-011-9360-x

Keywords

Navigation