Katana VentraIP

Medical ethics

Medical ethics is an applied branch of ethics which analyzes the practice of clinical medicine and related scientific research.[1] Medical ethics is based on a set of values that professionals can refer to in the case of any confusion or conflict. These values include the respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice.[2] Such tenets may allow doctors, care providers, and families to create a treatment plan and work towards the same common goal.[3] These four values are not ranked in order of importance or relevance and they all encompass values pertaining to medical ethics.[4] However, a conflict may arise leading to the need for hierarchy in an ethical system, such that some moral elements overrule others with the purpose of applying the best moral judgement to a difficult medical situation.[5] Medical ethics is particularly relevant in decisions regarding involuntary treatment and involuntary commitment.

For the 1803 textbook, see Medical Ethics (book). For the journal, see Journal of Medical Ethics.

There are several codes of conduct. The Hippocratic Oath discusses basic principles for medical professionals.[5] This document dates back to the fifth century BCE.[6] Both The Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and The Nuremberg Code (1947) are two well-known and well respected documents contributing to medical ethics. Other important markings in the history of medical ethics include Roe v. Wade in 1973 and the development of hemodialysis in the 1960s. With hemodialysis now available, but a limited number of dialysis machines to treat patients, an ethical question arose on which patients to treat and which ones not to treat, and which factors to use in making such a decision.[7] More recently, new techniques for gene editing aiming at treating, preventing and curing diseases utilizing gene editing, are raising important moral questions about their applications in medicine and treatments as well as societal impacts on future generations,[8][9] yet remain controversial due to their association with eugenics.[10]


As this field continues to develop and change throughout history, the focus remains on fair, balanced, and moral thinking across all cultural and religious backgrounds around the world.[11][12] The field of medical ethics encompasses both practical application in clinical settings and scholarly work in philosophy, history, and sociology.


Medical ethics encompasses beneficence, autonomy, and justice as they relate to conflicts such as euthanasia, patient confidentiality, informed consent, and conflicts of interest in healthcare.[13][14][15] In addition, medical ethics and culture are interconnected as different cultures implement ethical values differently, sometimes placing more emphasis on family values and downplaying the importance of autonomy. This leads to an increasing need for culturally sensitive physicians and ethical committees in hospitals and other healthcare settings.[11][12][16]

Albert Kligman's dermatology experiments

Deep sleep therapy

Doctors' Trial

Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute

Henrietta Lacks

's Cancer Injection Study

Chester M. Southam

Human radiation experiments

Jesse Gelsinger

Moore v. Regents of the University of California

Surgical removal of body parts to try to improve mental health

Medical Experimentation on Black Americans

Milgram experiment

Radioactive iodine experiments

The Monster Study

Plutonium injections

The case

David Reimer

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Tuskegee syphilis experiment

Willowbrook State School

Yanomami blood sample collection

Darkness in El Dorado

Respect for – the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment.[39]

autonomy

– a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient.[39]

Beneficence

– to not be the cause of harm. Also, "Utility" – to promote more good than harm.[39]

Non-maleficence

– concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment.[39]

Justice

Conflicts[edit]

Between beneficence and non-maleficence[edit]

Beneficence can come into conflict with non-maleficence when healthcare professionals are deciding between a “first, do no harm” approach vs. a “first, do good” approach, such as when deciding whether or not to operate when the balance between the risk and benefit of the operation is not known and must be estimated. Healthcare professionals who place beneficence below other principles like non-maleficence may decide not to help a patient more than a limited amount if they feel they have met the standard of care and are not morally obligated to provide additional services. Young and Wagner argued that, in general, beneficence takes priority over non-maleficence (“first, do good,” not “first, do no harm”), both historically and philosophically.[1]

Between autonomy and beneficence/non-maleficence[edit]

Autonomy can come into conflict with beneficence when patients disagree with recommendations that healthcare professionals believe are in the patient's best interest. When the patient's interests conflict with the patient's welfare, different societies settle the conflict in a wide range of manners. In general, Western medicine defers to the wishes of a mentally competent patient to make their own decisions, even in cases where the medical team believes that they are not acting in their own best interests. However, many other societies prioritize beneficence over autonomy. People deemed to not be mentally competent or having a mental disorder may be treated involuntarily.


Examples include when a patient does not want treatment because of, for example, religious or cultural views. In the case of euthanasia, the patient, or relatives of a patient, may want to end the life of the patient. Also, the patient may want an unnecessary treatment, as can be the case in hypochondria or with cosmetic surgery; here, the practitioner may be required to balance the desires of the patient for medically unnecessary potential risks against the patient's informed autonomy in the issue. A doctor may want to prefer autonomy because refusal to respect the patient's self-determination would harm the doctor-patient relationship.


Organ donations can sometimes pose interesting scenarios, in which a patient is classified as a non-heart beating donor (NHBD), where life support fails to restore the heartbeat and is now considered futile but brain death has not occurred. Classifying a patient as a NHBD can qualify someone to be subject to non-therapeutic intensive care, in which treatment is only given to preserve the organs that will be donated and not to preserve the life of the donor. This can bring up ethical issues as some may see respect for the donors wishes to donate their healthy organs as respect for autonomy, while others may view the sustaining of futile treatment during vegetative state maleficence for the patient and the patient's family. Some are worried making this process a worldwide customary measure may dehumanize and take away from the natural process of dying and what it brings along with it.


Individuals' capacity for informed decision-making may come into question during resolution of conflicts between autonomy and beneficence. The role of surrogate medical decision-makers is an extension of the principle of autonomy.


On the other hand, autonomy and beneficence/non-maleficence may also overlap. For example, a breach of patients' autonomy may cause decreased confidence for medical services in the population and subsequently less willingness to seek help, which in turn may cause inability to perform beneficence.


The principles of autonomy and beneficence/non-maleficence may also be expanded to include effects on the relatives of patients or even the medical practitioners, the overall population and economic issues when making medical decisions.

/ Abortion debate

Abortion

Eugenics

Gene splicing

Human cloning

Human genetic engineering

Human trafficking

Beauchamp, Tom L., and Childress, James F. 2001. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

at the Wayback Machine (archived 2007-07-03)

Bioethics introduction

A. 1988. Life and Death Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brody, Baruch

E. "The Catholic Moral Tradition in Bioethics" in Walter and Klein (below).

Curran, Charles

Epstein, Steven (2009). Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research. University of Chicago Press.  978-0-226-21310-1.

ISBN

(1954). Morals and Medicine: The Moral Problems of: The Patient's Right to Know the Truth, Contraception, Artificial Insemination, Sterilization, Euthanasia. Boston: Beacon.

Fletcher, Joseph Francis

Hastings Center (1984). The Hastings Center's Bibliography of Ethics, Biomedicine, and Professional Responsibility.  10727310.

OCLC

Kelly, David (1979). The Emergence of Roman Catholic Medical Ethics in North America. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press. See especially chapter 1, "Historical background to the discipline."

Sherwin, Susan (1992). . Philadelphia: Temple University Press. OCLC 23654449.

No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics and Health Care

Veatch, Robert M. (1988). A Theory of Medical Ethics. New York: Basic Books.  7739374.

OCLC

Walter, Jennifer; Eran P. Klein, eds. (2003). The story of bioethics: from seminal works to contemporary explorations. Georgetown University Press.  51810892.

OCLC

(1999). Confessions of a Medicine Man. Cambridge: MIT Press. OCLC 42328600.

Tauber, Alfred I.

(2005). Patient autonomy and the ethics of responsibility. Cambridge: MIT Press. OCLC 59003635.

Tauber, Alfred I.

«Législation, éthique et déontologie», Bruxelles: Editions de Boeck Université, 2011, Karine Brehaux (in French),  978-2-84371-558-7.

ISBN

Percival, Thomas (2014-07-17). Medical Ethics. Cambridge University Press. :10.1017/cbo9781107360518. ISBN 978-1-108-06722-5.

doi

Sam Kean (2021). The Icepick Surgeon: Murder, Fraud, Sabotage, Piracy, and Other Dastardly Deeds Perpetrated in the Name of Science. Little, Brown and Company.  978-0316496506.

ISBN

Veatch, Robert M. (1997). Medical ethics. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.  978-0-86720-974-7. OCLC 34772350.

ISBN

Zima, Tomas; Weisstub, David N., eds. (2023). Medical Research Ethics: Challenges in the 21st Century. Philosophy and Medicine. Vol. 132. Cham: Springer International Publishing. :10.1007/978-3-031-12692-5. ISBN 978-3-031-12691-8. ISSN 0376-7418. S2CID 255723919.

doi

at Curlie

Bioethics

at World Health Organization

Global health ethics

article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Health Care Ethics