In the context of relationships between health care providers and patients, this is simply "doing no harm". The golden rules of medicine are "first do no harm, then do good wherever possible". Non-maleficence changes depending on the situation. Consider a patient with terminal cancer... while it would be beneficial to prescribe analgesia to ease their pain, non-malefience might suggest we should not prescribe too much pain killer in order to avoid overdose or interaction with other drugs. It's a pretty weak example but the four pillars of ethics (these two and "autonomy" and "justice") must be closely examined in clinical decision making, assuming you're asking about a medical context.
In layman's terms, nonmalficence means "first, do no harm". It is often used as a medical term, so people like doctors and nurses do not hurt patients intentionally.
to do no harm or avoiding harm
There is no such a principle as non- beneficence. There are two main ethical principles of beneficence (do good) and non- maleficence (do no harm or in Latin, Primum non nocere)
There is no such a principle as non- beneficence. There are two main ethical principles of beneficence (do good) and non- maleficence (do no harm or in Latin, Primum non nocere)
to do no harm or avoiding harm
I strive to provide a standard of care that is non-maleficence.
Principles for the grater good.
there are no objective ethical facts and no true ethical principles
Ethical principles guide individuals to make decisions that are morally right and just.
muchas cosas
what are the ethical principles
taray
Kant believes that ethical principles are based on reason and the concept of duty. He argues that actions are morally right if they are done from a sense of duty and follow the categorical imperative, which is a universal moral law. Kant emphasizes the importance of acting in accordance with principles that could be accepted by all rational beings.
The four pillars of Public Health research are respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice.