References

Emergency Department Triage: an ethical analysis. BMC Emergency Medicine. 2011. http//bmcemergmed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-227X-11-16 (accessed 1st October 2016)

Beauchamp T Principlism and its alleged competitors. In: Harris J ((ed)). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995

Beauchamp T, Childress J Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Seventh Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013

The evolving ethics of dialysis in the United States: A principlist bioethics approach. 2016. http//cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/early/2016/02/10/CJN.04780515.abstract (accessed 1 October 2016)

The virtues (and vices) of the four principles. 2003. http//jme.bmjjournals.com/ (accessed 1st October 2016)

Justice and the NICE approach. 2015. http//jme.bmjjournals.com/ (accessed 1st October 2016)

How ‘moral’ are the principles of biomedical ethics? - A cross domain evaluation of the common morality hypothesis. 2014. http//bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-15-47 (accessed 1 October 2016)

In defence of moral imperialism: four equal and universal prima facie principles. 2006. http//jme.bmjjournals.com/ (accessed 1st October 2016)

Dworkin G The Theory and Practice of Autonomy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998

A virtue ethics approach to moral dilemmas in medicine. 2003. http//jme.bmjjournals.com/ (accessed 1st October 2016)

Gillon R Philosophical Medical Ethics.UK: John Wiley and Sons; 1985

Gillon R The four Principles Revisited – a Reappraisal. In: Gillon R ((ed)). UK: John Wiley Ltd; 1994

Gillon R Ethics needs principles – four can encompass the rest- and respect for autonomy should be ‘first among equals’. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2003; 29:307-12

Gillon R Defending the four principles approach as a good basis for medical practice and therefore for good medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2015; 41:111-6

Harris J In praise of unprincipled ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2003; 29:303-6

Lee MJH The problem of ‘thick in status, thin in content’ in Beauchamp and Childress' principlism. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2009; 36:525-8

Macklin R Applying the four principles. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2003; 29:275-80

Macklin R Can one do good medical ethics without principles?. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2015; 41:75-8

Mallia P. Towards an ethical theory in disaster situations. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2015; 18:(1)3-11

Misselbrook D. Virtue ethics - an old answer to a new dilemma? Part 1. Problems with contemporary medical ethics. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2015; 108:(2)53-6

Nicholson R Limitations of the Four Principles. In: Gillon R. ((ed)). UK: John Wiley Ltd; 1994

Paulo N Specifying specification. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2016; 26:(1)1-28

Shaw D, Gardiner D Editorial: Moral distance and distributive justice: how the increase in organ donation is helping us make better decision. Anaesthesia. 2015; 70:1-17

Thornton T Judgement and the role of the metaphysics of values in medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2006; 32:365-70

Veatch RM Resolving conflicts among principles: ranking, balancing, and specifying. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 1995; 5:(3)199-218

Principlism: when values conflict

02 April 2017
Volume 9 · Issue 4

Abstract

To ensure morally justified decisions, clinicians are encouraged to apply ethical theories and frameworks. Beauchamp and Childress’ ‘Four Principles’ approach to medical ethics, or ‘Principlism’ for short, is highly regarded as a simple methodology for considering ethical dilemmas, and is common to many undergraduate clinical programmes. On occasion, ethical dilemmas are complex and one or more of the four principles come into conflict with each other. Critics of the approach have suggested that there is a lack of guidance on how to resolve this conflict.

This paper will argue that principlism facilitates an organised and thorough method of reflecting upon an ethical problem and is well suited to the pre-hospital setting. The problem of how to resolve conflicts between the principles will be explored, demonstrating the merit of the approach through its application to a real-life moral problem from the pre-hospital setting.

Beauchamp and Childress's ‘Four Principles’ approach to medical ethics, or Principlism, is highly regarded as a simple methodology for considering ethical dilemmas. Despite its propitious beginnings, it has been suggested that there is a lack of guidance on how to resolve conflict which arises between the principles despite robust academic defence of the approach (Gillon, 2015; Macklin, 2015).

This paper will argue that Principlism enables an organised and thorough method of reflecting upon an ethical problem which is well suited to the pre-hospital setting. The problem of how to resolve conflicts between the principles will be explored, demonstrating the merit of the approach through its application to a moral problem.

The four principles approach to biomedical ethics provides a straightforward framework for considering moral dilemmas, and is based on four moral principles: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice (Beauchamp and Childress, 2013). These principles are considered binding unless in conflict with one another. If all the associated obligations can be justifiably met, the agent will have produced a morally acceptable answer to their ethical question.

Subscribe to get full access to the Journal of Paramedic Practice

Thank you for visiting the Journal of Paramedic Practice and reading our archive of expert clinical content. If you would like to read more from the only journal dedicated to those working in emergency care, you can start your subscription today for just £48.

What's included

  • CPD Focus

  • Develop your career

  • Stay informed