when I was doing gene technology ethics classes we were constantly told about these Values in medical ethics
A common framework used in the analysis of medical ethics is the “four principles” approach postulated by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress in their textbook Principles of biomedical ethics. It recognizes four basic moral principles, which are to be judged and weighed against each other, with attention given to the scope of their application. The four principles are:[6]
Respect for autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
Beneficence – a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
Non-maleficence – “first, do no harm” (primum non nocere).
Justice – concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment (fairness and equality).
Other values which are sometimes discussed include:
Respect for persons – the patient (and the person treating the patient) have the right to be treated with dignity.
Truthfulness and honesty – the concept of informed consent has increased in importance since the historical events of the Doctors’ Trial of the Nuremberg trials and Tuskegee syphilis experiment.
Values such as these do not give answers as to how to handle a particular situation, but provide a useful framework for understanding conflicts.
When moral values are in conflict, the result may be an ethical dilemma or crisis. Sometimes, no good solution to a dilemma in medical ethics exists, and occasionally, the values of the medical community (i.e., the hospital and its staff) conflict with the values of the individual patient, family, or larger non-medical community. Conflicts can also arise between health care providers, or among family members. Some argue for example, that the principles of autonomy and beneficence clash when patients refuse blood transfusions, considering them life-saving; and truth-telling was not emphasized to a large extent before the HIV era.
and also “TRANSPARACY” which is hard when right now we are experiencing a intellectual and international COLD WAR… how then can we expect govts or media and even countries advanced in stem cell or cloning etc to be honest or “Transparent” to their professional overseeing boards and bodies when people are being denied access at a very basic level.
Ethics, Transparency and Accountability
The end of the cold war; spreading democratization; a shift in balance among the state, the market and civil society; globalization; and changing social mores — among other factors — are altering the environment in which governments are operating. The explosion of new information and communication technologies is also allowing for a rapid, global diffusion of ideas and practices, enabling the public to demand higher standards of ethics, transparency and accountability in the public sector. These prerequisite values of good governance and sustainable development not only buttress responsive public policy and high levels of public sector performance but also play a crucial role in preventing the onset of systemic corruption. There is now international recognition that corruption impedes economic development, undermines stability and erodes trust in public institutions. The pernicious effects of corruption — the lack or poor quality of essential public infrastructure and services — are borne by those the least able to do so: the poor.
Given its mandate of fostering good governance and sound public administration in development, the Division for Public Administration and Development Management (DPADM) supports setting international standards, carries out comparative policy research and analysis, and assists in building capacity in institutions safeguarding public sector ethics, transparency and accountability. The Division’s activities are predicated on the analysis that corruption is one symptom of poor administration and mismanagement. These situations allow unscrupulous public officials to exploit opportunities for putting self above public interest, contrary to the spirit of public service. Moreover, the Division’s activities also seek to preserve the integrity of other “honest” public officials by putting into place an “ethics infrastructure” that not only provides guidance for good conduct but also administratively and legally punishes misconduct. The “ethics infrastructure” includes measures to enhance and preserve organizational integrity, access to information that promotes transparency and accountability, and oversight by independent institutions and the public at large. In conducting its activities in this area, the Division has tried to best leverage the United Nations’ uniquely global membership, through fostering international dialogue and the exchange of experiences.