China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Social justice and public health
Published in Sridhar Venkatapuram, Alex Broadbent, The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Public Health, 2023
While not referencing utilitarianism directly by name, Nancy Edwards and Colleen Davison argue that “some distancing from public health’s social justice values” (2008: 102) occurred following a mid-twentieth-century shift toward reductionist thinking and an increased demand for empirical evidence to support public health interventions. For some, the use (and, often, reliance) on cost-effectiveness analyses and expert-determined indices of health status in public health, such as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), represents a utilitarian approach to producing the greatest amount of health for the greatest number of people (Jonsen 1986; Kotalik 2006). Indeed, some consider utilitarianism to be one of the leading frameworks for contemporary health policy and welfare economics (Ruger 2010; Weinstein 1990; Weinstein and Stason 1977). Though, despite the ubiquity of utilitarianism in public health discourse, it is worth noting that it is far less common to find an unabashed defense or justification of a commitment to utilitarianism in philosophical treatments of public health in contrast to what as is found with non-utilitarian commitments to social justice.
Clinical and organizational ethics
Published in Gerard Magill, Lawrence Prybil, Governance Ethics in Healthcare Organizations, 2020
Gerard Magill, Lawrence Prybil
There are many theories that shape the debate about ethics in healthcare. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that ascertains whether an action is right or wrong based upon its consequences. Consequentialism is a related theory. Utility and consequences are central concepts in these approaches. Deontology or deontological ethics is the theory that ascertains whether an action is right or wrong based upon universal maxims that apply to all cases of the same kind, independent of consequences. Duty is a central concept in this approach. Liberal Individualism is a theory that is based upon rights to justify claims that individuals or groups can make upon others. The concept of rights is central in this approach. Communitarianism is a theory based upon a view of the community that celebrates the general welfare or common purposes. The concept of solidarity is central in this approach. The Ethics of Care is another ethical theory that is based upon traits of personal relationships, such as compassion, fidelity, and love. Virtue ethics combines insights from other ethical theories to connect moral character, practical wisdom, and laudable actions. Many other ethical theories have been developed, such as on Casuistry, Feminist Ethics, Natural Law, Situational Ethics, or Teleological Ethics.5
Philosophical backgrounds
Published in Gerrit Glas, Person-Centered Care in Psychiatry, 2019
The issue of trust is in turn related to the utilitarian view of the good. Utilitarianism is the theory that conceives moral behavior as the pursuit of the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. This pursuit is usually framed in the form of rational-purposive action, i.e., in a rational account of the relation between means and ends. Means and ends are not intrinsically coupled in this approach, for instance by tradition or by the inner logic of practices. They are coupled based on rational deliberation about the most effective balance between the two. For the field of labor this implies, as we have seen, an instrumentalistic and functionalistic approach to work and to professionalism.
Ethical Considerations in Vaccine Allocation
Published in Immunological Investigations, 2021
Samuel Reis-Dennis, Megan K. Applewhite
Before doing so, however, it will be helpful to clarify the relationship between the kind of concern for the “greater good” we have in mind and the philosophical doctrine of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, most famously associated with the works of Jeremy Bentham (Mill et al. 1987) and John Stuart Mill, (Mill 2014) is a theory that calls on us to maximize total welfare or happiness. Because it requires maximization of welfare in every case, utilitarianism leaves no room for other competing values. As a result, it has been rightly criticized by those who do not believe that all of our ethical ambitions and principles can be reduced to an interest in utility. For example, opponents of utilitarianism stress the importance of other values such as respect for dignity of persons that would be violated by some political arrangements that led to the greatest total happiness. To take an extreme but instructive example: Would a system that allowed for the dehumanizing abuse of a small group of people be morally required if it maximized the overall population’s total welfare? Utilitarianism implies that it would be, but surely, the critics protest, this would not ethically justify such a disrespectful scheme. The example suggests that we do not, and should not, focus solely one kind of value (pleasure or happiness) in our ethical reasoning, but must make room for other kinds of considerations (respect, justice, equity) as well.
Content development footprints for the establishment of a National Bioethics Committee: lessons from Nigeria
Published in Global Bioethics, 2021
Chitu Womehoma Princewill, Ayodele Samuel Jegede, Adefolarin Malomo, Francis Chukwuemeka Ezeonu, Abdulwahab Ademola Lawal, Omokhoa Adeleye, Christie Oby Onyia
A critical evaluation of ethics usually concerns the action, the actor, the intention or the consequences. In considering how every citizen ought to embrace their duties, rights and obligations, we have found Immanuel Kant's duty ethics, known as the Kantian theory very helpful. This theory, which focuses on autonomy, stipulates that an actor should place a moral norm upon him or herself and obey it as an autonomous individual (Misselbrook, 2013). Citizens by this theory are expected to pay allegiance to the law of the country as enshrined in various extant regulatory documents and implied in the national anthem and pledge. Utilitarianism is of the view that an action is morally right if it results in pleasure, whereas it is wrong if it gives rise to pain (West, 2004). Achieving this depends on how individual actor or citizen exhibits the right virtue. It is expected that every citizen will base his or her action on the right virtues of selflessness, care, love and charity. So, virtue ethics suggests that citizens should take on morally good and responsible character as enshrined in the constitution and as ethically proper. These theories were important to our efforts. We have also adopted the principles of autonomy, maleficence, non-maleficence and justice according to Beauchamp and Childress (2009), in the contexts of the other theories mentioned above.
Evaluating the Use of Ethical Decision-Making Models for Art Therapy
Published in Art Therapy, 2019
Thomson J. Ling, Jessica M. Hauck, Caitlin J. Doyle, Kristy N. Percario, Tiffany Henawi
To aid in ethical practice, health professions have developed a variety of decision-making models (e.g., Corey, Corey, & Callanan, 2015; Forester-Miller & Davis, 1996; Frame & Williams, 2005; Hill & Mamalakis, 2001; Sileo & Kopala, 1993). These models tend to have common elements. They should be easily accessible to a wide range of practitioners and applicable to a wide range of situations (e.g., Hauck & Ling, 2016; Sileo & Kopala, 1993). Further, ethical decision making should draw from theoretical bases to help assess ethical dilemmas and arrive at the best course of action. There are three theories commonly used in ethical decision making. First, utilitarianism considers the various outcomes and benefits that might result as therapists work to resolve ethical situations (Mills, 1863/2004; Warburton, 2013). Second, moral relativism encourages seeking assistance from others in the field to determine the industry standards that apply to a situation, as well as applying relevant literature to the ethical situation in question (Sumner, 1906/2008; Warburton, 2013). Finally, a deontological framework considers a therapist's responsibility to liability and what actions in an ethical dilemma would serve to increase or limit their exposure to liability (Alexander & Moore, 2015). Two models that include these components are the ABCDE worksheet (Sileo & Kopala, 1993) and the DO ART model (Hauck & Ling, 2016).