Do No Harm Definition Ethics
The main principles of ethics, i.e. charity, non-malice, autonomy and justice, are discussed. In terms of “do no harm first,” “Epidemics” is considered the most likely source of the popular proverb. Consider this quote: Smith, Cedric M. “Origin and Use of Primum Non Nocere – Above all, Don`t Hurt!” The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Volume 45, Issue 4, American College of Clinical Pharmacology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., March 7, 2013. “Do no harm first” is a popular saying derived from the Latin expression “primum non nocere” or “primum nil nocere”. The term is particularly popular with those who work in the field of health care, medicine or bioethics, and with popular reports on the medical field, as it is a basic principle taught in health courses. But if doctors took “first, don`t hurt” literally, no one would have surgery, even if it saved lives. We may stop ordering mammograms because they could lead to a biopsy for a non-cancerous mass. In fact, we can`t even ask for blood tests – the pain, bruising or bleeding needed to collect blood is clearly preventable damage. Each of the 4 principles of ethics must be understood as a prima facie obligation that must be fulfilled, unless in a particular case it is contrary to another principle. In such a conflict, the physician must determine the actual obligation to the patient by examining the respective weights of the prima facie competing obligations, both in terms of content and context.
Let`s take the example of a conflict that has a simple solution: a shock patient who was treated with urgent fluid resuscitation, and the placement of a persistent intravenous catheter caused pain and swelling. Here, the principle of charity transcends that of non-malice. However, many of the conflicts that physicians face are much more complex and difficult. Consider the rejection of a potentially life-saving procedure by a competent patient (e.g. B the introduction of mechanical ventilation) or the request for a potentially vital measure (e.B. Retraction of mechanical ventilation). Nowhere in the arena of ethical decision-making is conflict so pronounced as when the principles of charity and autonomy collide. Resistance to the principle of patient autonomy and its derivatives (informed consent, search for truth) in non-Western cultures is not unexpected. In countries with ancient civilizations, beliefs, and ingrained traditions, the practice of paternalism (this term is used in this article because it is firmly rooted in the ethical literature, although parenthood is the right term) by doctors comes mainly from charity.
However, culture (a composition of the usual beliefs, social forms, and material characteristics of a racial, religious, or social group) is not static and autonomous, and changes over the years with other trends. It is presumptuous to assume that the patterns and roles in physician-patient relationships that have existed for half a century or more are still true. Therefore, a critical examination of paternalistic medical practice is needed for reasons that include technological and economic progress, improving the educational and socio-economic status of the population, globalization, and the social movement toward the focus on the patient as an individual and not as a member of a group. This necessary research can be done through research that includes well-structured surveys of demographics, patient preferences for informed consent, truth realization, and role in decision-making. According to Gonzalo Herranz, professor of medical ethics at the University of Navarra, Primum non nocere was introduced to American and British medical culture by Worthington Hooker in his 1847 book Physician and Patient. Hooker attributes it to the Parisian pathologist and clinician Auguste François Chomel (1788-1858), Laennec`s successor to the chair of medical pathology and tutor to Pierre Louis. Apparently, the axiom was part of Chomel`s oral teaching. [3] Hooker, however, cited earlier work by Elisha Bartlett,[4] who says on pages 288-289: “Chomel`s golden axiom, that it is only the second law of therapy to do good, his first law is this – not to cause harm – gradually finds its way into the medical mind and prevents an incalculable amount of positive diseases.” The first principle, non-malignancy or absence of harm, is directly related to the nurse`s duty to protect patient safety. Born from the Hippocratic Oath, this principle dictates that we do not inflict wounds on our patients. The Belmont report notes that “people are treated ethically, not only by respecting their choices and protecting them from harm, but also by striving for their well-being.” Ensuring the well-being of a research topic is a principle of charity.
The charity, as described in the Belmont report, requires the investigator to follow two general rules. The first is to “do no harm” and the second is to “maximize potential benefits and minimize potential harm.” With regard to the first general rule of charity, the authors of the Belmont report did not intend for researchers to achieve the standard of “first, do no harm” (primum non nocere), commonly known as the first principle of medical ethics. Rather, the Commission intended to prohibit the deliberate injury of a human subject in order to develop new ideas that could be generalized, regardless of the importance of that knowledge. They advocated accepting the exposure of a person who was the subject of a possibility (or statistical probability) of injury as long as an IRB concluded that it was justified given the likelihood and scope of the benefits sought. The benefits can benefit individual subjects or, through the development of general knowledge, society, perhaps in the form of better health care. However, the risks are borne by individual subjects. The risks and benefits of research are not always known, and researchers, as well as THE IRBs that approve their protocols, must decide with imperfect knowledge when it is justified to seek certain benefits despite the risks involved, and when the benefits should be avoided because of the risks. Intergovernmental nursing practice inherently complicates the ethical issue of privacy and confidentiality for patients and nurses. More and more states and patients are meeting more healthcare providers, administrators, regulators, and financial decision-makers with a need to know. If we add telefirures to this equation and more nurses practice beyond state borders, a potential ethical problem arises. The time has come to avoid such a problem before we are in the middle of practice and the ethics of opportunism give way. Non-malice, derived from the maxim, is one of the main imperatives of bioethics that all health care students be taught in school, and is a fundamental principle worldwide.
Another way to put it is that “given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something or even do nothing than risk doing more harm than good.” He reminds health workers to consider the potential harm that any intervention could cause. It is used when discussing the use of an intervention that carries a clear risk of harm but a certain probability of lower benefit. [Citation needed] A series of unfortunate abuses of human subjects in research, medical interventions without informed consent, experiences in concentration camps during World War II, as well as salutary advances in medicine and medical technology, and societal changes, have led to a rapid development of bioethics from a concern for professional behavior and codes to its current status with extensive scope, research ethics. Public health ethics, organizational ethics and clinical ethics. .
my_asianlife
最新記事 by my_asianlife (全て見る)
- 3 Requisites of Contract: Essential Elements for Legal Agreements - 2022年4月5日
- Joint Ownership Agreement Format - 2022年3月2日
- It Agreement Wto Upsc - 2022年3月2日
