Advertisement

Balancing Old and New Approaches: Principlism Versus Proportionism

  • Paul Walker
  • Terence Lovat
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Ethics book series (BRIEFSETHIC)

Abstract

This chapter considers the four principles that have been distilled from the normative frameworks identified in the previous chapter, proposed as ways of guiding practical decision making in medical ethics. These are respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. They have had considerable influence on moral decision making in clinical situations, and, at a minimum, they offer a common ethical language amongst clinicians. Shortcomings in their theoretical and practical application will be identified. Various understandings of autonomy—considered to be first amongst the four principles—will be considered. Critical re-examination suggests that our traditional understanding of autonomy is impoverished and requires re-evaluation. What is formed herein as the proportionist approach seeks a virtuous mean or balance-point in maoral decision making that takes account of the frameworks and principles identified in this and the previous chapter but in a way that is more grounded in the realities of the modern era (as will be expanded upon in the following chapters). It seeks to balance intrinsic rules and empirical consequences, hence utilizing but also going beyond the bounds of the deontological and teleological frameworks alone. Its starting point is the actual reality of the patient in their situation. It is put into clinical practice via a process we term dialogic consensus, a term we explore in Chaps.  4 and  5.

Keywords

Autonomy Beneficence Clinical decision making Dialogic consensus Non-maleficence Principlism Proportionism Proportionist approach 

References

  1. Aquinas, T. 1952. Summa theologica. (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, and D.J. Sullivan, Trans.). In Thomas Aquinas II vol. 20, 1st ed. Great Books of the Western World. Chicago: William Benton, Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle, 2000. Politics. Translated by B. Jowett, Revised ed, ed. Mineola, New York: Dover Thrift Editions.Google Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th ed. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carel, H. 2011. Phenomenology and its application in medicine. Theoretical Medical Bioethics 32 (1): 33–46. doi: 10.1007/s11017-010-9161-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clouser, K.D., and B. Gert. 1990. A critique of principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15 (2): 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Curran, C.E. 1979. Transition and tradition in moral theology. In London, xiv, 255. University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  7. de Beauvoir, S. 2011. The second sex. (Constance Borde, and S.M. Chevallier, Trans.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  8. Deligiorgi, K. 2012. The many faces of Kantian autonomy, 1st ed, The scope of autonomy: Kant and the morality of freedom. Oxford: Oxford university Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fletcher, J. 1966. Situation ethics: The new morality. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fried, C. 1974. Medical experimentation: Personal integrity and social policy Clinical studies series, vol. 5. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Habermas, J. 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. (C.L.S. Weber, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Habermas, J. 2001. Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics. (C. Cronin, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, J. 2003. In praise of unprincipled ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (5): 303–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herring, J., and P.-L. Chau. 2007. My body, your body, our bodies. Medical Law Review 15 (1): 34–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoffman, T.C., F. Legare, M.B. Simmons, K. McNamara, K. McCaffery, L.J. Trevena, et al. 2014. Shared decision making: What do clinicians need to know and why should they bother? Medical Journal of Australia 201 (1): 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones James, and The Tuskegee Institute. 1981, 1993. Bad blood: The Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Revised ed. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  17. Larmore, C. 2008. The autonomy of morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCormick, R.A. 1967. Notes on moral theology: January–June, 1967. Theological Studies 28 (4): 749–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mill, J.S. 1952. On liberty. In American state papers, The federalist, On liberty, Representative government, Utilitarianism. Great Books of the Western World, vol. 43, 1st ed., 267–326. Chicago: William Benton, Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Newson, A. Genomic advances and testing and screening before birth: What’s at stake? In Australian Association of Bioethics and Health Law Conference, Sydney, 14 July 2013.Google Scholar
  21. Pellegrino, E. 2013. Moral choice, the good of the patient, and the patient’s good. In Ethics and critical care medicine, ed. J.C. Moskop, and L.M. Kopelman, Philosophy and Medicine, vol. 19. xx, 236. Dordrecht: D Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Raanan, G. 2003. Ethics needs principles—four can encompass the rest—and respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”. Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (5): 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walker, P., and T. Lovat. 2014. Concepts of personhood and autonomy as they apply to end-of-life decisions in intensive care. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18 (3): 309–315. doi: 10.1007/s11019-014-9604-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Walker, P., and T. Lovat. 2016. Towards a proportionate approach to moral decision making in medicine. Ethics and Medicine 32 (3): 153–161.Google Scholar
  25. Walker, P., T. Lovat, J. Leitch, and P. Saul. 2014. The moral philosophical challenges posed by fully implantable permanent pacemakers. Ethics and Medicine 30 (3): 157–165.Google Scholar
  26. Weindling, P. 2001. The origins of informed consent: the International Scientific Commission on medical war crimes, and the Nurenberg code. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 75 (1): 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wolpe, P.R. 1998. The triumph of autonomy in American medical ethics: A sociological view. In Bioethics and society: Constructing the ethical enterprise ed. Raymond DeVries, and J. Subedi, xxiii, 276. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Medicine and Public HealthThe University of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia
  2. 2.School of Humanities and Social ScienceThe University of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia
  3. 3.University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations