ArticleBMC medical ethics2012
The four principles: can they be measured and do they predict ethical decision making?
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
48 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methods for Practising Ethics in Research and Innovation: A Literature Review, Critical Analysis and Recommendations.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Pooled it
- A best-practice position statement on pregnancy after kidney transplantation: focusing on the unsolved questions. The Kidney and Pregnancy Study Group of the Italian Society of Nephrology.Journal of nephrology · 2018Guideline
- Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Pooled it
- The Relationship Between Nurses' Approaches to Ethical Issues and Their Attitudes Towards Principles of Ethics: A Descriptive, Correlational Research Design.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Legal Literacy in Clinical Nursing Practice: A Walker and Avant Concept Analysis.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Expanding the ethics horizon: integrating African canons for inclusive research ethics in Africa.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Legal, ethical and moral dilemma of human cloning: the conflict between technological progress and human dignity.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- The Value and Importance of a Professional Ethical Code for Medicines Development: IFAPP International Ethics Framework.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Serial Living Solid Organ Donation: An Ethical Analysis.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Observational
- "That Is What We Have Left of Her": The Significance of Transitional Objects After the Death of an Infant in a Norwegian Context.Qualitative health research · 2025Article
- Alternate Choice Organ Counselling in Altruistic Non-Directed Solid Organ Donation: An Ethical Analysis.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- On Medical Tourism Overseas: Ethical Analysis of the Duties of NHS Doctors in Managing the Negative Health Consequences of Accessing Medical Treatments Abroad.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Implications of Large Language Models for Clinical Practice: Ethical Analysis Through the Principlism Framework.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Navigating Ethical and Legal Tensions in Mandatory Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence: Insights from Norwegian Assault Centers.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Ethical and Legal Debates on Vaccine Infodemics.Cureus · 2024Review
- The application of medical ethics in the developing countries - A neurosurgical perspective.Brain & spine · 2024Review
- Explaining the concepts and examples of conflict of interest and its management in the medical laboratory system of Iran: A scoping review.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Assessment of Research Ethics Knowledge of Pediatricians.Global pediatric health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe four principles of Beauchamp and Childress--autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice--have been extremely influential in the field of medical ethics, and are fundamental for understanding the current approach to ethical assessment in health care. This study tests whether these principles can be quantitatively measured on an individual level, and then subsequently if they are used in the decision making process when individuals are faced with ethical dilemmas.
methodsThe Analytic Hierarchy Process was used as a tool for the measurement of the principles. Four scenarios, which involved conflicts between the medical ethical principles, were presented to participants who then made judgments about the ethicality of the action in the scenario, and their intentions to act in the same manner if they were in the situation.
resultsIndividual preferences for these medical ethical principles can be measured using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. This technique provides a useful tool in which to highlight individual medical ethical values. On average, individuals have a significant preference for non-maleficence over the other principles, however, and perhaps counter-intuitively, this preference does not seem to relate to applied ethical judgements in specific ethical dilemmas.
conclusionsPeople state they value these medical ethical principles but they do not actually seem to use them directly in the decision making process. The reasons for this are explained through the lack of a behavioural model to account for the relevant situational factors not captured by the principles. The limitations of the principles in predicting ethical decision making are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.