Principlism's Balancing Act: Why the Principles of Biomedical Ethics Need a Theory of the Good.
Beauchamp and Childress
axiology
balancing moral principles
biomedical ethics
moral dilemmas
normative ethical theory
practical wisdom
principlism
specification of moral principles
the four principles
value theory
well-being
Journal
The Journal of medicine and philosophy
ISSN: 1744-5019
Titre abrégé: J Med Philos
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7610512
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 07 2020
29 07 2020
Historique:
entrez:
30
7
2020
pubmed:
30
7
2020
medline:
30
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Principlism, the bioethical theory championed by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, is centered on the four moral principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice. Two key processes related to these principles are specification-adding specific content to general principles-and balancing-determining the relative weight of conflicting principles. I argue that both of these processes necessarily involve an appeal to human goods and evils, and therefore require a theory of the good. A significant problem with principlism is that it lacks a theory of the good and consequently does not have an adequate solution to the problems of specification and balancing. My conclusion is that principlism must adopt some account of human well-being in order to be a satisfactory bioethical framework.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32726809
pii: 5878081
doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhaa014
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
441-470Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.