China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Responsibilities to the Public—Professional Engineering Societies
Published in Diane P. Michelfelder, Neelke Doorn, The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Engineering, 2020
Joseph Herkert, Jason Borenstein
In the context of research, respect for persons refers to whether individuals have a meaningful opportunity to make a voluntary choice about participation in a study. Interconnected with the principle of respect for persons is informed consent, a process that is supposed to ensure potential research subjects are participating voluntarily. Beneficence is the ethical obligation that engineers and other researchers have to do as much good for research subjects, or for the larger population that the subjects are part of, as possible. The principle of non-maleficence is the obligation to “do no harm.” Within the context of research, justice pertains to how the benefits and risks of a study are distributed; the principle also encompasses whether individuals or groups have a meaningful opportunity to participate in research studies.
Global, regional and local ecological change
Published in Friedo Zölzer, Gaston Meskens, Ethics of Environmental Health, 2017
The third of these – the precautionary principle – is related both to ‘non-maleficence’ and ‘respect for autonomy’ under the biomedical framework. This is apparent when examining the risk from a certain agent, in which case the presence of uncertainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent such exposure.
A Principlist Justification of Physical Restraint in the Emergency Department
Published in The New Bioethics, 2021
The principle of non-maleficence also supports rule 1 – the use of PR only as a last resort. Non-maleficence can be thought of as not causing harm, and with regards to medical interventions specifically, not causing harm disproportionate to the benefits of any treatment (Beauchamp and Childress 2001). In its most severe forms, PR can have severe consequences for the patient’s physical health, such as skin tears, pressure ulcers and exacerbation of pre-existing delirium (Cheung and Yam 2005, McBrien 2007, Chapman et al. 2015). This is especially true if it is incorrectly applied by someone who is not trained in PR (Rakhmatullina et al. 2013) – thus supporting rule 4.
The Wisdom of Germline Editing: An Ethical Analysis of the Use of CRISPR-Cas9 to Edit Human Embryos
Published in The New Bioethics, 2019
Part I of this paper, however, details the significant ethical concerns related even to such therapeutic uses of the technology when considered under the bioethical principles of non-maleficence and justice. Regardless, Part II of this paper evaluates the Academy’s proposed framework for the regulation of germline editing to conclude it will not be possible to contain the technology to purely therapeutic uses. Part III of this paper explores the ethical issues related to enhancement applications of the technology even if germline editing is initially approved only for certain therapeutic applications.