Ethics in Healthcare: Balancing Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, and Justice

This article discusses the ethical principles of healthcare workers, including autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, and how they apply to a case study involving radiography on a pregnant patient.

Running head: ETHICS 1
Ethics
Name
Institution

ETHICS 2
Ethics
It is the ethical duty of the health practitioner to seek the consent of a patient before
commencing any procedures. Any patient aged 16 years or above like is the case with Jody has
the right to consent or not to any clinical procedure proposed by a health therapist (Young,
2010). The relationship between a doctor and their patient is normally underpinned by a
professional duty of care. The four main principles that form the basis of the duty of care of all
healthcare workers are non-maleficence, justice, respect for autonomy, and beneficence. These
four principles help the practitioners in handling ethical dilemmas and at the same time ensuring
that the most important factors are not overlooked.
From the provided case study, we are informed that Jody tells the oral health therapist
about her pregnancy and further requests the doctor to proceed with the radiography and say
nothing about the pregnancy to her mother. This happens despite there being protocols
prohibiting the use of radiography on expectant women. The ethical standards of practice
demand for non-maleficence. The doctors normally possess a sense of morality that ensures they
do not cause harm to the patient or anyone else (Beauchamp, 2016). Proceeding with the
radiography on Jody puts her unborn child at a higher risk of being born with defects associated
with radiography. It would thus be advisable not to proceed with the procedure and follow the
due protocols.
Another principle that is an important part of the duty of care is beneficence that
advocates for the maximization of benefits and minimization of harms to the patient. This
principle underlies all the actions that are carried out by the health practitioner (Beauchamp,
2016). In some instances like Jody’s case, the perspective of the patient regarding what they

ETHICS 3
deem as being their best interest may not be similar to that of the therapist. As a result, the doctor
ends up in a situation with conflicts between beneficence, non-maleficence, and autonomy. He,
therefore, has to find a balance between these principles.
The third principle is known as justice and it focusses on the right thing that should be
done in any situation. Anyone has the same rights in the healthcare setting. The fetus also has a
right to justice and must thus be protected from any kind of harm that may be induced by any
clinical procedure. The other principle is the respect of autonomy that demands that any decision
made by the patient must be respected by the doctor (Wolf, Annas & Elias, 2013). Jody’s oral
health therapist, therefore, needs to find a balance between autonomy, rights, and the avoidance
of harm.
As stipulated in the standards of practice, it is the ethical responsibility of the doctor to
respect Jody’s autonomy. However, it is important to discuss with the patient regarding all the
benefits of not proceeding with the procedure. The aim of this discussion is not to convince but
to provide sufficient information so that the patient can then make an informed decision
(Andersson et al., 2010). It could be possible that the radiography is not even a significant
necessity and could, therefore, be avoided to protect the fetus from unnecessary harm. Andersson
et al. (2010), however, adds that if Jody still insists that the radiograph is taken, then the oral
health practitioner could proceed but document that all the risks and benefits of the clinical
procedure had been explained to the client.

ETHICS 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.