Ethical Practice in Healthcare: Principles of Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice

This article discusses the ethical practice in healthcare, focusing on the principles of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. It provides a case study on how to balance these principles in a clinical setting, where a patient requests a radiography while pregnant and asks the healthcare worker not to reveal this information to her mother.

Running head: ETHICAL PRACTICE 1
Ethical Practice
Name
Institution

ETHICAL PRACTICE 2
Ethical Practice
Health practitioners are ethically required to seek the consent of all their patients before
proceeding with any clinical procedure. According to Young (2010), any patient above 16 years
of age like Jody has the right to consent or refuse any clinical procedure suggested by a
healthcare worker. A doctor always owes their patient a professional duty of care and this duty of
care is what underpins their relationship. There are four main principles that are fundamental to
the duty of care of health therapists and they include justice, non-maleficence, respect for
autonomy, and beneficence. The doctor will apply these four principles in handling almost any
ethical dilemma while at the same time ensuring that the most important factors are not
overlooked.
From the scenario that we have been provided with, Jody reveals that she is pregnant and
asks the oral health therapist not to reveal this information to her mother. She further requests the
doctor to proceed with the radiography to prevent any suspicions from her mother. There are
however protocols that prohibit the use of radiography on expectant women. Beauchamp (2016)
ascertains that the ethical standards of the nursing practice demand non-maleficence. This is to
say that the health practitioner needs to possess a sense of morality to ensure that no harm is
caused to the patient or anyone else. If the doctor, therefore, proceeds with the radiography, then
the fetus is placed at a high risk of being born with the side effects associated with the procedure.
But since there is a principle of respect for autonomy, the doctor has to respect any
decision made by the client. The oral health therapist, therefore, proceeds with the procedure at
Jody’s request (Wolf, Annas & Elias, 2013). He, however, has to document that all the risks and

ETHICAL PRACTICE 3
benefits of radiography had been explained to the client. The doctor thus has to find the balance
between the respect of autonomy, rights, and the avoidance of harm.
Another significant principle is beneficence that champions for the minimization of
harms to the patient and maximization of benefits. According to Beauchamp (2016), this
principle inspires all the actions of a health practitioner. Sometimes the client’s perspective of
their perceived best interest differs from that of the doctor like is the case with Jody. The doctor
may thus end up in a situation where he has conflicts between autonomy, rights, and harm
avoidance and must thus find a balance between these principles. Justice which is the third
principle focuses on the right things that should be done. Anyone including Jody’s unborn child
has the same rights in the healthcare setting and must, therefore, be protected from any kind of
harm.
The doctor has a responsibility to respect Jody’s autonomy and proceed with the
radiography. However, as Andersson et al. (2010) ascertain, it is important to discuss with the
patient regarding all the benefits and risks associated with the procedure. This discussion is
aimed at providing the client with all the necessary information rather than convincing her.
Through the discussion, Jody may even realize that the radiography may not be necessary.
However, if Jody still insists that she needs the radiograph, then the doctor could proceed but,
document in the clinical records that all the risks and benefits associated with the procedure had
been explained to the client.

ETHICAL PRACTICE 4
References
Andersson, G. B., Chapman, J. R., Dekutoski, M. B., Dettori, J., Fehlings, M. G., Fourney, D. R.,
... & Weinstein, J. N. (2010). Do no harm: the balance of “beneficence” and “non-
maleficence”.
Wolf, S. M., Annas, G. J., & Elias, S. (2013). Patient autonomy and incidental findings in
clinical genomics. Science, 340(6136), 1049-1050.
Beauchamp, T. L. (2016). Principlism in Bioethics. In Bioethical Decision Making and
Argumentation (pp. 1-16). Springer, Cham.
Young, R. (2010). Informed consent and patient autonomy(pp. 530-540). Wiley‐Blackwell.