Advertisement

A Defense of Universal Principles in Biomedical Ethics

  • Tom L. BeauchampEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 78)

Abstract

The four principles of biomedical ethics are widely used in the world for bioethical deliberation. These theoretical guides are useful for the analysis and resolution of particularly complex ethical controversies arising in clinical and biomedical fields. This chapter develops an analysis of the basic universal principles, the common universal morality, and some characteristics of each principle. Then it discusses some problems posed by critics who have provided alternative frameworks of principles that are nonuniversal. Finally, it shows how universal moral principles are connected to human rights, how rules and rights are specified to become detailed and practical for certain moralities, and how these ideas are connected with problems of justification in bioethics and biolaw.

References

  1. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Braybrooke, D. (1972). The firm but untidy correlativity of rights and obligations. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1, 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clouser, D., & Gert, B. (1990). A critique of principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 15, 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daniels, N. (1979). Wide reflective equilibrium and theory acceptance in ethics. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 256–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daniels, N. (1996). Wide reflective equilibrium in practice. In L. W. Sumner & J. Boyle (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on bioethics (pp. 96–114). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  6. DeGrazia, D., & Beauchamp, T. L. (2001). Philosophical foundations and philosophical methods. In D. Sulmasy & J. Sugarman (Eds.), Methods of bioethics (pp. 33–36). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dickenson, D. L. (1999). Cross-cultural issues in European bioethics. Bioethics, 13, 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donagan, A. (1977). The theory of morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Feinberg, J. (1980). Rights, justice, and the bounds of liberty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feinberg, J. (1984). The moral limits of the criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gert, B. (2005). Morality: Its nature and justification (2 Rev ed.). New York: Oxford University Pres.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gert, B. (2007). Common morality: Deciding what to do. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gert, B., Culver, C. H., & Clouser, D. (2006). Bioethics: A systematic approach. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gordon, J. S., Rauprich, O., & Vollman, J. (2011). Applying the four-principle approach. Bioethics, 25, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffin, J. (2008). On human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hart, H. L. A. (1973). Bentham on legal rights. In A. W. B Simpson (Ed.), Oxford essays in jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Holm, S. (1994). Not just autonomy—The principles of American biomedical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 21, 332–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kukla, R. (2014). Living with pirates. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 23, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawson, R. (2007). Harmonising human rights in Europe. In J. Gunning & S. Holm (Eds.), Ethics, law, and society. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Lindsay, R. A. (2005). Slaves, embryos, and nonhuman animals: Moral status and the limitations of common morality theory. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 15, 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lyons, D. (1970). The correlativity of rights and duties. Nous, 4, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miers, S. (2003). Slavery in the twentieth century: The evolution of a global problem. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pellegrino, E. (1994). The four principles and the doctor-patient relationship: The need for a better linkage. In R. Gillon (Ed.), Principles of health care ethics (pp. 353–367). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Pellegrino, E., & Thomasma, D. (1988). For the patient’s good: The restoration of beneficence in health care. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rauprich, O. (2008). Common morality: Comment on Beauchamp and childress. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 29, 43–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rauprich, O. (2013). Principlism. International encyclopedia of ethics. Wylie Online Library. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee658/abstract. Accessed February 20, 2015.
  27. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rendtorff, J. D. & Kemp, P. (2000). Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw (Vols. 1–2). Copenhagen and Barcelona: Centre for Ethics and Law & Institut Borja de Bioetica.Google Scholar
  29. Richardson, H. S. (1990). Specifying norms as a way to resolve concrete ethical problems. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19, 279–310.Google Scholar
  30. Richardson, H. S. (2000). Specifying, balancing, and interpreting bioethical principles. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 25, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ross, W. D. (1939). The foundations of ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Sen, A. (1997a). Human rights and Asian values. New York: Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs.Google Scholar
  33. Sen, A. (1997b). Resources, values and development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Strong, C. (2000). Specified principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 25, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wallace, K. A. (2009). Common morality and moral reform. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 30, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wellman, C. P. (1995). Real rights. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgetown UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations