Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Chapter 4 - Nonmaleficence and Negative Constraints

  • David DeGrazia, George Washington University, Washington DC, Joseph Millum, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
  • Book:
    A Theory of Bioethics
    Published online:
    17 August 2021
    Print publication:
    26 August 2021, pp 58-96
    • Chapter
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Summary

    The principle of nonmaleficence states a prohibition on causing harm to others in the absence of justifying circumstances. After surveying some prominent accounts of the nature of harm, we defend a counterfactual account: you harm someone if and only if you make them worse off than they would have been in the absence of your intervention. Using this account we specify nonmaleficence into several general moral rules corresponding to ways in which individuals can be harmed. These foundational reflections are followed by discussions of three areas of ethical concern in which rules concerning harm are prominent: (1) the ethics of torture, including health professionals’ involvement in torture; (2) the limits of permissible risk in pediatric research; and (3) the ethics of medical assistance-in-dying. We argue for a prohibition of torture, a specific risk ceiling for pediatric research, and a liberal approach, with various safeguards, to medical assistance-in-dying.