Non-maleficence

Definition

Non-maleficence is an ethical principle that emphasizes the obligation to not inflict harm intentionally. It connects closely with the notion of doing no harm and requires individuals, particularly in healthcare and ethical decision-making, to avoid actions that could cause physical, psychological, or emotional damage. This principle is fundamental in various ethical discussions, especially regarding medical treatments and end-of-life care decisions.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Non-maleficence is often summarized by the phrase 'first, do no harm,' which is a foundational concept in medical ethics.
2. In clinical practice, non-maleficence requires healthcare professionals to carefully consider the potential risks and benefits of any treatment or intervention.
3. This principle plays a significant role when discussing controversial issues like euthanasia, as it raises questions about the potential harm caused by ending a patient's life.
4. Balancing non-maleficence with beneficence can be challenging, as actions intended to promote good may inadvertently cause harm.
5. Non-maleficence also encompasses the responsibility to prevent harm from occurring, emphasizing proactive measures in patient care.

Review Questions

• How does non-maleficence influence decision-making in healthcare settings?
  • Non-maleficence influences decision-making by urging healthcare professionals to weigh the potential harms against the benefits of any proposed treatments. Practitioners must carefully assess whether an intervention could cause more harm than good, guiding them to choose options that prioritize patient safety. This principle is critical in maintaining trust and ensuring ethical standards within medical practice.
• In what ways can non-maleficence create ethical dilemmas in cases of euthanasia?
  • Non-maleficence creates ethical dilemmas in euthanasia cases because it raises conflicting obligations: on one hand, there’s a duty to prevent suffering (beneficence), while on the other, there’s a commitment not to cause harm by ending a life. Advocates for euthanasia may argue that it alleviates unbearable pain, supporting beneficence. However, opponents worry about the moral implications of causing death, highlighting the complexity of balancing these principles.
• Evaluate how non-maleficence interacts with autonomy in medical ethics, especially during end-of-life decisions.
  • Non-maleficence interacts with autonomy by necessitating that healthcare providers respect patients' rights to make their own choices while ensuring that those choices do not result in harm. In end-of-life decisions, patients may wish to refuse life-prolonging treatments or opt for euthanasia, asserting their autonomy. However, providers must evaluate whether fulfilling these wishes aligns with non-maleficence by considering the potential harms involved. This complex relationship demands careful dialogue between patients and providers to honor both ethical principles effectively.

Related terms

Beneficence:

The ethical principle of acting in the best interest of the patient, promoting good and well-being.

Autonomy:

The right of individuals to make informed decisions about their own lives and bodies.

Informed Consent:

The process of providing patients with information about a treatment or procedure so they can make an educated decision regarding their care.