Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SDLS 2008 Non-Maleficence
SDLS 2008 Non-Maleficence
Detoxicol
SDLS 2008
Medicine for the intoxicated
Subject: Bioethics Lecture Date: August 19, 2005
Topic: Non-maleficence Transcriber(s): Jaime Aherrera
Lecturer: Dr. Melchor Frias IV No. of pages: 3
NON-MALEFICENCE
“To Avoid Evil / Sin”
in health care settings: One ought not to inflict evil or harm either by opposition of actuality
Avoid Evil and Evil consequences unless you have a Proportionate Reason for risking or permitting them
Non-Malificence is the OPPOSITEE of Beneficence
**Justification of Non-Maleficence:
o Human Dignity
o Patient’s Rights
A. Moral Requirement
Medical Practitioners should strive to serve the well-being of their patients
First Goal: Don’t do Harm to the Patient
1. Proper Training
• to provide competent and quality medical service
• doctors have to train for a long time (med-school, specialization)
2. Skills
• to continue to
study, apply and advance scientific knowledge
• after training, we
have to seek more knowledge for more technology, specialize, etc
3. Diligence
• to obtain consultation and use talents of other health professionals when indicated
• it is physician’s obligation to refer patient to other specialist if knowledge is limited
• ex) Pediatricians seek talents of other professionals because knowledge is limited
**Examples:
In giving Vaccines, we advice the patient that he will have Fever; so he should take Paracetamol
before the onset of fever
When we give Morphine to Cancer Patients, our Primary Goal is to relieve the PAIN, however,
Morphine can cause DEATH (Take NOTE: Our Primary Goal is to relieve Pain, not the harm)
**NOTE: When there is Benefit and Harm; how do we weigh the two in a Particular Action or Procedure?
• The proportionality contained in the Principle is to be judged by considering the following four factors:
o Alternatives
o Level of Good and Evil
o Certitude of Good and Evil
o Causal Influence of Agent
A. Alternatives
o Whether there are alternative ways to Attaining the Intended good w/ NO Evil or Less Evil Consequences
o If there are alternative ways / means of attaining the good with less evil or less risk of evil, common sense
dictates that the Alternative be chosen
o The good is to be done with the Smallest Amount of Evil Possible (we recommend the treatment with the
LEAST Side Effects)
o Patient decides on the Treatment – he is dependent on the information we give the patient
**Examples:
In an Adolescent who will undergo operation, she will fear that her appearance will be ruined –
therefore, this is an EVIL for Her
When we recommend a procedure which would threaten the Life of a Patient (High Probability of
Death), leave the patient crippled / physically disabled – there should be a SERIOUS GOOD to
justify such a procedure / treatment (ex. It would prolong patient’s life – patient should decide)
**Examples:
When we tell the patient that there is a 30% Chance of success of a procedure
SDLS 2008
2
**Examples:
In chemotherapy, patient looses Hair–we cant remove this Evil because it is impossible to do so
------------------------------------------------------END OF TRANX------------------------------------------------------
SDLS 2008
3