Core Ethical Principles (Part 1)
Summary
TLDRThis script delves into the four core principles of medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. It emphasizes the importance of respecting patient autonomy, acting in their best interest (beneficence), avoiding harm (non-maleficence), and ensuring fair treatment (justice). The discussion uses real-life scenarios to illustrate ethical dilemmas, particularly the tension between autonomy and beneficence, and the difference between equal and equitable treatment in the context of justice.
Takeaways
- 📚 The four core principles of ethics are autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
- 🧠 Autonomy emphasizes respecting patients as individuals and their right to make informed decisions.
- 🛡 Beneficence involves acting in the patient's best interest, which can sometimes conflict with autonomy.
- 🚫 Non-maleficence, or 'do no harm,' requires careful consideration of the risks and benefits of medical interventions.
- ⚖️ Justice in medical ethics means providing equitable treatment, not necessarily equal treatment, especially in triage situations.
- 🤔 Ethical dilemmas often arise when principles like beneficence and autonomy are at odds, requiring careful judgment.
- 🗣️ Informed consent is a critical aspect of respecting autonomy and is discussed in more detail in subsequent videos.
- 🏥 In practice, ethical principles guide healthcare providers in making decisions that balance patient rights and medical best practices.
- 👨⚕️ The script uses case examples to illustrate how ethical principles apply to real-world clinical scenarios.
- 📉 The principle of justice is nuanced; it focuses on fair treatment within the constraints of the medical system, not just simple equality.
Q & A
What are the four core principles of ethics in healthcare?
-The four core principles of ethics in healthcare are autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
What does the principle of autonomy entail in the context of patient care?
-Autonomy refers to respecting patients as individuals, creating an environment conducive to informed consent, and honoring patient decision-making, assuming the choice is made with capacity.
How does the principle of beneficence conflict with autonomy in ethical dilemmas?
-Beneficence, which involves acting in the patient's best interest, often conflicts with autonomy when patients make decisions that are not in their best interest, creating a challenge in ethical dilemmas.
What is the correct response when a patient with stage 1 renal cell carcinoma refuses cancer-suppressing therapy?
-The correct response is to respect the patient's decision but also to inform them that not pursuing treatment is not the best course of action, balancing autonomy and beneficence.
What does the term 'non-maleficence' mean in medical ethics?
-Non-maleficence means 'do no harm' and requires careful consideration of risks versus benefits, especially when performing risky procedures or invasive tests.
How is the principle of non-maleficence balanced against beneficence in medical decisions?
-Non-maleficence is balanced against beneficence by weighing the potential risks of harm against the benefits of treatment or procedures, ensuring informed consent is given when risks are involved.
What is the difference between equal and equitable treatment in the context of the principle of justice?
-Equal treatment implies the same treatment for all, whereas equitable treatment means fair treatment within the constraints of the medical legal system, taking into account the urgency and severity of individual cases.
Why might a patient have to wait in the emergency department while others are seen sooner?
-A patient might have to wait because the principle of justice requires equitable treatment, which means prioritizing more acute or life-threatening cases over less urgent ones, even if it appears unequal.
How can a physician ensure they are upholding the principle of justice when triaging patients?
-A physician can ensure they are upholding justice by following triage protocols that prioritize patients based on the severity of their condition, ensuring equitable access to care.
What is the significance of informed consent in the context of ethical principles?
-Informed consent is significant as it is a process that respects a patient's autonomy by ensuring they understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a treatment or procedure before giving their consent.
Outlines
📚 Introduction to Core Ethical Principles
The video script introduces the four core principles of medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. It emphasizes the importance of these principles in medical practice and education, noting that while the principles themselves are straightforward, applying them to real-world scenarios can be challenging. The script uses examples to illustrate how these principles might come into conflict, particularly between autonomy (respecting a patient's individual choices) and beneficence (acting in the patient's best interest). The discussion highlights the complexity of ethical decision-making in healthcare.
🏥 Ethical Dilemma: Balancing Autonomy and Beneficence
This section of the script delves into a specific ethical dilemma involving a patient with stage 1 renal cell carcinoma who refuses treatment. The physician must balance respecting the patient's autonomy with the principle of beneficence, which requires acting in the patient's best interest. The script explains why certain responses to the patient's decision are inappropriate, such as offering false hope or failing to inform the patient of the risks and benefits of treatment. The correct approach, as per the script, is to acknowledge the patient's decision while also communicating the physician's obligation to inform them that refusing treatment may not be the best course of action.
🚑 Non-Maleficence and Beneficence in Medical Decisions
The script discusses the principle of non-maleficence, which dictates that physicians should 'do no harm.' It contrasts this with beneficence, which involves promoting the patient's well-being. An example is provided of a patient needing a liver biopsy, where the physician must weigh the risks (non-maleficence) against the potential benefits (beneficence). The script clarifies that while physicians must inform patients of the risks and benefits, they should avoid making overly general statements about treatment outcomes and instead focus on specific data and the patient's individual circumstances.
🔄 Equity in Healthcare: The Principle of Justice
The final section of the script addresses the principle of justice in healthcare, which involves treating patients fairly. It uses a scenario where a patient with non-acute symptoms is made to wait while others with more urgent needs are treated first. The script explains that justice in this context means equitable treatment, not necessarily equal treatment. The triage system is highlighted as an example of equitable treatment, where patients are prioritized based on the severity of their conditions, ensuring that resources are allocated fairly according to medical need.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Autonomy
💡Beneficence
💡Non-maleficence
💡Justice
💡Informed Consent
💡Capacity
💡Ethics Committee
💡Triage
💡Ethical Dilemma
💡Risks vs. Benefits
Highlights
Introduction to the four core principles of ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
Explanation of autonomy as respecting patients' individual rights and informed consent.
Beneficence is described as acting in the patient's best interest, often conflicting with autonomy.
An example scenario involving a patient with renal cell carcinoma refusing treatment to illustrate beneficence versus autonomy.
The correct response to the patient's refusal of treatment, emphasizing beneficence over autonomy.
Non-maleficence is introduced as the principle of 'do no harm' and requires a careful risk-benefit analysis.
A practice question contrasting non-maleficence with beneficence in the context of a liver biopsy.
The importance of informed consent in balancing non-maleficence and beneficence.
Introduction to the principle of justice, emphasizing equitable treatment over equal treatment.
A scenario in the emergency department to illustrate the concept of equitable treatment versus equal treatment.
The distinction between equitable and equal treatment in the context of justice.
The importance of understanding that triage is not an exception to justice, but part of equitable treatment.
Summary of the four core ethical principles and their practical application in medical ethics.
Emphasis on the difficulty of applying ethical theories to real-world scenarios in medical practice.
Advice on how to approach ethical questions, especially when principles conflict.
Encouragement to watch the rest of the lecture series for a deeper understanding of ethics.
Transcripts
now you've probably seen these core
principles before and they're extremely
important and that's why they're always
the first little bit of information
that comes up in any review textbook or
question bank
when you're learning ethics the four
core principles of ethics
are autonomy beneficence non-maleficence
and justice and we're going to go
through each of these one at a time
and i'll use some examples of
challenging scenarios
or questions that you might see about
these core principles
and if we can just pause for one second
as a
bigger theme of ethics what you'll
notice is that
the material itself isn't that hard to
learn right there's very
finite amount of information when it
comes to learning ethics but what's
really challenging
is applying those you know the theory of
ethics and what we should be doing
to actual questions because oftentimes
with ethical questions
there'll be a couple answers that sound
really good and really convincing
and it will be very very difficult to
choose between them
so as we go through these examples and
as we go through this entire
dirty ethics series i'll do my best to
point out what you should keep in mind
when you're answering questions
so let's get started with the four
ethical principles the first
one is autonomy so autonomy refers to
respecting patients as individuals right
so you respect each patient
as their own individual it requires that
you create an environment that's
conducive to informed
consent and you're going to see the word
informed consent pop up a lot in this
lecture
and it's actually going to be the second
video in dirty ethics so see the next
video in this lesson series to get more
information about informed consent
autonomy also it refers to honoring
patient decision making regardless of
what their choice is
assuming that this choice is made with
capacity
and we'll get into what capacity is in a
future video as well
so that's autonomy now if you're
confused about what autonomy means and
you're not really
good at understanding it by referring to
these bullet points
look at the word itself auto means self
right
automatic driving car is a self-driving
car
right auto digestion is self-digestion
so
look at the prefix of these words if
you're having trouble remembering what
the ethical principle
refers to so it means self and again
autonomy is respecting patients as
individuals or respecting them as their
individual selves
so very very important the next ethical
principle is beneficence and this is
acting in the patient's best interest
and on exams this usually conflicts with
the principle of autonomy and that's the
reason
that ethical questions about beneficence
are actually pretty challenging so we're
going to focus on this point
in red that on exams beneficence
usually conflicts with the principle of
autonomy so i want to use an example to
show
you how this might come up so here's our
example
a 39 year old white male with a past
medical history of renal cell carcinoma
currently stage 1 is seen in the
oncology office
he says that he does not want to engage
in cancer suppressing therapy
and does not want to hear about
chemotherapy or radiation
or resection he is content to die
the patient is judged to have full
capacity in making this decision
which of the following is the best
response so before i even read the
different answer choices here let's
just really quickly highlight what this
question is saying so we've got a guy
who has
a cancer in his kidney it's currently
stage one
he's not interested in hearing about
treatment options and he's very much
willing to die
at some point it looks like the
physician who's
you know explaining everything to him
judge this patient to have full capacity
in making this decision
so now the question is which of the
following is the best response
a i respect your decision but tell me
how you arrived at this decision
b i respect your decision but medically
there's hope to treat this
c i respect your decision but it is my
obligation to tell you that this is not
the best course of action
d we will not proceed with any further
treatment
e i will be forced to discuss your
choice with the ethics committee
now a lot of these answers seem pretty
good right i mean if you're if you're
the physician in real life you might say
a combination of these things but on a
test there's one
answer okay there's one answer now you
know what a lot of you
are leaning towards right now you're
probably leaning towards choice a but
this is not the correct answer because
in the question the patient was already
judged to have full capacity and we're
going to get into capacity in a future
video but
as one of the criteria of capacity the
patient has to explain to you
in a seemingly logical and linear
fashion how they arrived at their
decision
so a would be redundant because they've
already told you how they have arrived
at that decision
since you judged them to have capacity
so the correct answer here is actually c
and if you if you read c it says i
respect your decision but it's my
obligation to tell you that this is not
the best course of action so obviously
the question was
hinting that this is stage one it's
treatable but the patient simply doesn't
want to hear any treatment options
okay so you as the physician have the
obligation to
act in the patient's best interest which
is the principle of beneficence in
telling them
that i respect your decision right
you're respecting their autonomy
but it's your obligation to tell them
that this is not the best course of
action so while you're respecting them
because of the principle of autonomy and
letting them act as a self
you also have to maintain the principle
of beneficence and
act in their best interest by telling
them that this is not the best course of
action
the reason that b is not the correct
answer is because you never want to give
somebody hope that something something's
going to be treated or cured
you can say that you know you can cite
data and say what the treatment outcomes
are and what the prognosis is
but a general statement such as but
medically there's hope to treat this
general statements like that are never
going to be the right answer on ethics
questions so avoid those generalities
d we will not proceed with any further
treatment technically that's right
because the patient has capacity
and you know you're going to respect
their decision because you're going to
respect their autonomy
but you have to throw in this little
qualifier that it's your obligation to
tell them that it's not the best course
of action
because if you just say we will not
proceed with any further treatment
then you're kind of like lacking
beneficence a little bit because but
you're not acting in the patient's best
interest if you don't tell them
that this this is not the best course of
action you have that obligation
and then e i will be forced to discuss
your choice with the ethics committee
anytime you see ethics committee it's
probably not the right answer it's only
the right answer in one
very unique case which we'll get into in
a future video
but again the gist of this question is
that oftentimes beneficence which is
acting in the patient's best interest is
going to be at odds with autonomy
where you're allowing the patient to
make their own decisions because
oftentimes they're going to make
decisions
that are not in their best interest so
again the only point of this question
was to show you
that beneficence and autonomy are
oftentimes on exams going to be at odds
with one another
the next ethical principle is
non-maleficence
non-maleficence refers to the do no harm
thing you know the oath that you swore
in medical school do no harm
non-maleficence requires careful
consideration of risks versus benefits
it demands informed consent be given to
a patient if a risky procedure is
attempted
now let's look at the word right non
means no and maleficence means
like evil or bad or you know terrible so
non-maleficence literally means
no bad so this is do no harm or do no
bad
let's look at a practice question that's
going to highlight
what uh non-maleficence is oftentimes
juggled against so here's our example a
56 year old hispanic female is found to
have elevated lfts on routine screening
she is recommended to undergo a liver
biopsy as part of the informed consent
process she has explained all of the
pertinent information
the explanation of risks versus benefits
in this situation
is carefully balancing which ethical
principles
a non-maleficence versus autonomy b
non-maleficence versus beneficence c
non-maleficence versus justice d
non-maleficence versus both beneficence
and autonomy
or e non-maleficence versus both
beneficence and justice
so the answer here is b it's
non-maleficence versus beneficence so
here's here's what's going on when you
non-maleficence means do no harm so
whenever you're going to do some risky
procedure or some invasive test
you have to weigh the risks versus
benefits right the risk of doing harm
against the benefit of that treatment or
that invasive procedure doing something
beneficial for the patient
so acting in the patient's best interest
and
allowing them to confer benefits is
beneficence
but non-maleficence and your desire to
do no harm
is worrying about the risks and
explaining that in the informed consent
process
so often times on exams you're going to
have to balance non-maleficence or do no
harm
against beneficence and acting in the
patient's best interest
right it's deciding when is something
medically necessary even if there is a
risk
of harming the patient in doing so so
oftentimes this is the dilemma that
you're gonna see on exams so keep this
in mind
our fourth and final core ethical
principle is justice and simply put
justice is treating
people fairly now there's one minor
little stipulation that we have to make
about justice and i'm going to use a
practice question
to illustrate it to you and hopefully
you never forget it after this
so a 28 year old black male with a past
medical history
of gerd is seen in the ed waiting room
complaining of bloating and gas
he's concerned that he has a bowel
obstruction he's triaged by the ed
staff and he waits in the waiting room
for the next three and a half hours
as he's sitting there he sees other
patients who arrived after him
coming in and going straight back into
the emergency room
in this situation is the ethical
principle of justice
being upheld and being served for this
patient who's forced to wait in the
waiting room while he watches other
patients go straight back
a no this patient's treatment is not
equal
b no this treatment this patient's
treatment is not equitable
c yes triage is an exception to justice
d yes this patient's treatment is equal
e yes this treatment this patient's
treatment is
equitable so obviously as you can see
here i'm being a little nitpicky but i
want to use this to illustrate a very
important point
so the answer here is e yes justice is
being served and the reason that it's
being served
is that this patient's treatment is
equitable so justice
requires equitable treatment not equal
treatment so equitable means
like you're offered the same thing under
the law right
you're offered the same opportunity
within the constraints of the
medical legal system so when triage is
is the situation it's the hospital's
duty
to take patients back to the emergency
department that have more acute
complaints right chest pain
ruling out mis pneumothorax things that
are acutely
life-threatening and in that triage
process
everybody has equitable treatment
because when this gentleman came into
the room he was also triaged and
he was given that equitable treatment
and if it was something theoretically
that was life-threatening
he would have been taken right back but
he didn't because he's got to sit and
wait for a bed because
those beds that are open have to go to
the acutely
life-threatening situations now this is
called equitable treatment because it's
equitable under the medical legal system
it doesn't necessarily have to be equal
because in this case it's not
in this situation it's not equal right
he didn't go back but the other patient
did so that is not
equal that is inequal but justice
doesn't require equality
it requires equitability and c is not
correct because triage is not an
exception to justice justice is still
being served here
they're still treating people equitably
so justice requires equitable treatment
not equal treatment very very important
to understand that distinction
so that is the end of the first lesson
in dirty ethics as a quick summary we
went over the four
core ethical principles including
autonomy beneficence
non-maleficence and justice we used some
practice questions as we went through to
illustrate some high-yield principles
and see the rest of this lecture series
for more information
about ethics
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)