How “moral” are the principles of biomedical ethics? – a cross-domain evaluation of the common morality hypothesis

BMC Medical Ethics

Carmen Tanner³  Christian Ineichen²  Markus Christen¹ 

[1] University Research Priority Program Ethics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland;Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland;Department of Banking and Finance, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

关键词: Principlism;    Non-maleficence;    Moral values;    Moral psychology;    Medicine;    Justice;    Common morality;    Business and finance;    Beneficence;    Autonomy;   

Others  :  799499
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-15-47

 received in 2013-06-11, accepted in 2014-06-09,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The principles of biomedical ethics – autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice – are of paradigmatic importance for framing ethical problems in medicine and for teaching ethics to medical students and professionals. In order to underline this significance, Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress base the principles in the common morality, i.e. they claim that the principles represent basic moral values shared by all persons committed to morality and are thus grounded in human moral psychology. We empirically investigated the relationship of the principles to other moral and non-moral values that provide orientations in medicine. By way of comparison, we performed a similar analysis for the business & finance domain.

Methods

We evaluated the perceived degree of “morality” of 14 values relevant to medicine (n₁ = 317, students and professionals) and 14 values relevant to business & finance (n₂ = 247, students and professionals). Ratings were made along four dimensions intended to characterize different aspects of morality.

Results

We found that compared to other values, the principles-related values received lower ratings across several dimensions that characterize morality. By interpreting our finding using a clustering and a network analysis approach, we suggest that the principles can be understood as “bridge values” that are connected both to moral and non-moral aspects of ethical dilemmas in medicine. We also found that the social domain (medicine vs. business & finance) influences the degree of perceived morality of values.

Conclusions

Our results are in conflict with the common morality hypothesis of Beauchamp and Childress, which would imply domain-independent high morality ratings of the principles. Our findings support the suggestions by other scholars that the principles of biomedical ethics serve primarily as instruments in deliberated justifications, but lack grounding in a universal “common morality”. We propose that the specific manner in which the principles are taught and discussed in medicine – namely by referring to conflicts requiring a balancing of principles – may partly explain why the degree of perceived “morality” of the principles is lower compared to other moral values.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Christen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lee MJH: The problem of ‘thick in status, thin in content’ in beauchamp and childress’ principlism. J Med Ethics 2010, 36:525-528.
• [2]Beauchamp T, Childress J: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.
• [3]Gert B: Common Morality: Deciding What to Do. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2004.
• [4]De Grazia D: Common morality, coherence, and the principles of biomedical ethics. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2003, 13(3):219-230.
• [5]Campbell AV: The virtues (and vices) of the four principles. J Med Ethics 2003, 29(5):292-296.
• [6]Charlesworth M: Don’t blame the ‘bio’ – blame the ‘ethics’: varieties of (bio)ethics and the challenge of pluralism. J Bioeth Inq 2005, 2(1):10-17.
• [7]Gillon R: When four principles are too many: a commentary. J Med Ethics 2012, 38(4):197-198.
• [8]Ebbesen M, Pedersen BD: Empirical investigation of the ethical reasoning of physicians and molecular biologists - the importance of the four principles of biomedical ethics. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2007, 2:23. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Muirhead W: When four principles are too many: bloodgate, integrity and an action-guiding model of ethical decision making in clinical practice. J Med Ethics 2012, 38(4):195-196.
• [10]Westra AE, Willems DL, Smit BJ: Communicating with muslim parents: “the four principles” are not as culturally neutral as suggested. Eur J Pediatr 2009, 168(11):1383-1387.
• [11]Page K: The four principles: can they be measured and do they predict ethical decision making? BMC Med Ethics 2012, 13:10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Karlsen JR, Solbakk JH: A waste of time: the problem of common morality in principles of biomedical ethics. J Med Ethics 2011, 37(10):588-591.
• [13]Wilson JQ: The Moral Sense. New York: The Free Press; 1993.
• [14]Luo Q, Nakic M, Wheatley T, Richell R, Martin A, Blair RJ: The neural basis of implicit moral attitude – an IAT study using event-related fMRI. Neuroimage 2006, 30(4):1449-1457.
• [15]Cushman F, Young L, Hauser M: The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: testing three principles of harm. Psychol Sci 2006, 17(12):1082-1089.
• [16]Kahneman D: Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am Econ Rev 2003, 93:5.
• [17]Higgins ET: Knowledge Activation: Accessibility, Applicability, and Salience. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. Edited by Higgins ET, Kruglanski AW. New York: Guilford Press; 1996:133-168.
• [18]Van Schaik CP, Burkart J, Jaeggi A, Rudolf Von Rohr C: Morality as a Biological Adaptation – an Evolutionary Model Based on the Lifestyle of Human Foragers. In Empirically Informed Ethics. Edited by Christen M, Fischer J, Huppenbauer M, Tanner C, van Schaik CP. New York: Springer; 2014:65-84.
• [19]Haidt J, Joseph C: The Moral Mind: How 5 Sets of Innate Moral Intuitions Guide the Development of Many Culture-Specific Virtues, and Perhaps Even Modules. In The Innate Mind. Vol. 3 edition. Edited by Carruthers P, Laurence S, Stich S. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007:367-391.
• [20]Turiel E: The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press; 1983.
• [21]Prinz J: Where Do Morals Come From? – A Plea for a Cultural Approach. In Empirically Informed Ethics. Edited by Christen M, Fischer J, Huppenbauer M, Tanner C, van Schaik CP. New York: Springer; 2014:99-116.
• [22]Rokeach M: The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press; 1973.
• [23]Schwartz SH: Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theory and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. volume 25 edition. Edited by Zanna M. New York: Academic; 1992:1-65.
• [24]Kraft E, Hersperger M: Auch dank Frauen und Ausländern ist die ärztliche Versorgung in der Schweiz garantiert. Schweiz Ärztezeitung 2011, 92(49):1899-1901.
• [25]Brosnan SF: Precursors of Morality – Evidence for Moral Behaviors in Non-human Primates. In Empirically Informed Ethics. Edited by Christen M, Fischer J, Huppenbauer M, Tanner C, van Schaik CP. New York: Springer; 2014:85-98.
• [26]Ott T, Kern A, Steeb W-H, Stoop R: Sequential clustering: tracking down the most natural clusters. J Stat Mech 2005, 2:P11014. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2005/11/P11014
• [27]Tanner C, Christen M: Moral Intelligence – A Framework for Understanding Moral Competences. In Empirically Informed Ethics. Edited by Christen M, Fischer J, Huppenbauer M, Tanner C, van Schaik CP. New York: Springer; 2014:119-136.
• [28]Schwab M, Benaroyo L: Les divers sens de la notion d’autonomie en médecine et leur pertinence en clinique. Rev Med Suisse 2009, 5(223):2163-2165.
• [29]Hine K: What is the outcome of applying principlism? Theor Med Bioeth 2011, 32(6):375-388.
• [30]Fazio RH: Multiple processes by which attitude guide behavior: the mode model as an integrative framework. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 1990, 23:75-109.