Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15 (4):373-382 (2012)

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
Keywords Appropriateness  Excessiveness  Means and ends  Precautionary principle  Principle of proportionality
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11019-011-9360-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,908
External links

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

Practical Ethics.Peter Singer - 1979 - Cambridge University Press.
Pandora’s Hope.Bruno Latour - 1998 - Harvard University Press.

View all 23 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

New Horizons on Robotics: Ethics Challenges.António Moniz - 2019 - In Maria Céu do Patrão Neves (ed.), Ethics, Science and Society: Challenges for BioPolitics. Lisboa, Portugal: pp. 57-67.
An Argument Against Drug Testing Welfare Recipients.Mary Jean Walker & James Franklin - 2018 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 28 (3):309-340.
Regions, Concepts and Integrations.Henk ten Have & Bert Gordijn - 2012 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15 (4):363-364.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Explaining the Principle of Mala in Se.Morten Dige - 2012 - Journal of Military Ethics 11 (4):318-332.
Proportionality, Just War Theory and Weapons Innovation.John Forge - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):25-38.
Formulating the Precautionary Principle.Neil A. Manson - 2002 - Environmental Ethics 24 (3):263-274.
Is the Precautionary Principle Unscientific?B. D. - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34 (2):329-344.
How Not to Criticize the Precautionary Principle.Jonathan Hughes - 2006 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (5):447 – 464.
Is Hume's Principle Analytic?Crispin Wright - 2001 - In Bob Hale & Crispin Wright (eds.), Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic. Oxford University Press. pp. 307-333.
The Harm Principle.Nils Holtug - 2002 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4):357-389.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-11-03

Total views
39 ( #288,449 of 2,497,739 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #428,370 of 2,497,739 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes