The four principles: Can they be measured and do they predict ethical decision making? [Book Review]

BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):10- (2012)
Background: The four principles of Beauchamp and Childress - autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice - havebeen extremely influential in the field of medical ethics, and are fundamental for understanding the currentapproach to ethical assessment in health care. This study tests whether these principles can be quantitativelymeasured on an individual level, and then subsequently if they are used in the decision making process whenindividuals are faced with ethical dilemmas. Methods: The Analytic Hierarchy Process was used as a tool for the measurement of the principles. Four scenarios, whichinvolved conflicts between the medical ethical principles, were presented to participants and they madejudgments about the ethicality of the action in the scenario, and their intentions to act in the same manner if theywere in the situation. Results: Individual preferences for these medical ethical principles can be measured using the Analytic HierarchyProcess. This technique provides a useful tool in which to highlight individual medical ethical values. Onaverage individuals have a significant preference for non-maleficence over the other principles, however, andperhaps counter-intuitively, this preference does not seem to relate to applied ethical judgements in specificethical dilemmas. Conclusions: People state they value these medical ethical principles but they do not actually seem to use them directly in thedecision making process. The reasons for this are explained through the lack of a behavioural model to accountfor the relevant situational factors not captured by the principles. The limitations of the principles in predictingethical decision making are discussed
Keywords Ethical principles  Hierarchies  Medical ethics  Analytic hierarchy process
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,829
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Getting Down to Cases: The Revival of Casuistry in Bioethics.John D. Arras - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (1):29-51.
Four Scenarios.R. Gillon - 2003 - Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (5):267-268.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Ethical Decision Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.Ido Millet - 1998 - Journal of Business Ethics 17 (11):1197-1204.
Making Sense of Medical Ethics: A Hands-on Guide.Alan G. Johnson - 2006 - Distributed in the U.S.A. By Oxford University Press.
Ethical Decision Making: Special or No Different? [REVIEW]Dawn R. Elm & Tara J. Radin - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 107 (3):313-329.
When Ethics Survive Where People Do Not.G. M. A. Hussein - 2010 - Public Health Ethics 3 (1):72-77.
Emotion and Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations.Alice Gaudine & Linda Thorne - 2001 - Journal of Business Ethics 31 (2):175 - 187.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

26 ( #198,343 of 2,178,221 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #166,015 of 2,178,221 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums