7/28/2019 Bioethics 4,5,6

1/5

There are several prima facie duties that we can use to determine what, concretely, we ought

to do. A prima facie duty is a duty that is binding (obligatory) other things equal, that is, unless

it is overridden or trumped by another duty or duties. Another way of putting it is that where

there is a prima facie duty to do something, there is at least a fairly strong presumption in favor

of doing it. An example of a prima facie duty is the duty to keep promises. "Unless strongermoral considerations override, one ought to keep a promise made." By contrast with prima

facie duties, our actual or concrete duty is the duty we should perform in the particular

situation of choice. Whatever one's actual duty is, one is morally bound to perform it. Prima

facie duties relate to actual duties as reasons do to conclusions of reasoning.

The prima facie duties include

1. Fidelity.Duties of fidelity are duties to keep ones promises and contracts and not to engage

in deception. Ross describes them as "those resting on a promise or what may fairly be called

an implicit promise, such as the implicit undertaking not to tell lies which seems to be implied inthe act of entering into conversation . . . or of writing books that purport to be history and not

fiction" (Ross, 21)

2. Reparation. This is a duty to make up for the injuries one has done to others. Ross describes

this duty as "resting on a previous wrongful act" (Ross, ibid.)

3. Gratitude. The duty of gratitude is a duty to be grateful for benefactions done to oneself and

if possible to show it by benefactions in return.

4. Non-injury. The duty of non-injury (also known as non-maleficence) is the duty not to harm

others physically or psychologically: to avoid harming their health, security, intelligence,

character, or happiness. (21-22)

Added August 2004: Jacques Thiroux (2001, 65) claims that Ross' duty of non-injury includes a

duty to prevent injury to others. This seems to be wrong regarding Ross, but it might be

reasonable to add such a prima facie duty to the list. Non-injury in Ross' strict sense is distinct

from the prevention of harm to others. Non-injury instructs us generally to avoid intentionally,

negligently, or ignorantly (when ignorance is avoidable) harming others. Harm-prevention

instructs us generally to make a real effort to prevent harm to others from causes other than

ourselves.

See also the comment following the discussion of beneficence.

5. Harm-Prevention. Once again, this is the prima facie duty of a person to prevent harm to

others from causes other than him- or herself.

6. Beneficence. The duty to do good to others: to foster their health, security, wisdom, moral

goodness, or happiness. This duty, says Ross, "rests upon the fact that there are other beings in

7/28/2019 Bioethics 4,5,6

2/5

the world whose condition we can make better in respect of virtue, or of intelligence, or of

pleasure" (Ross, 21-22).

Added August 2004: Beneficence and harm-prevention are clearly related. There is an obvious

sense in which to prevent harm to persons is to do them good. But this is trivially true, normally

not even worth saying (just as it's normally not worth saying that there is at least one person inthe room when we already know there are two persons in the room).

How, if at all, can we distinguish between harm-prevention, on the one hand, and beneficence

in the strict sense, on the other, that is, beneficence that is not primarily harm-prevention? And

why should we bother? Let's answer the second question first: We should bother because

frequently harm-prevention is morally more demanding than beneficence. If the alternative is

between preventing a toddler from wandering into a busy street and playing catch with her

sister, it is clear what should take priority.

But how can we distinguish harm-prevention from beneficence in the strict sense? Loosely,

harm seems to be whatever significantly degrades, or risks degrading, our health or other

capabilities for coping with and getting the most out of life. By contrast, benefit seems to be

whatever enhances, or is likely to enhance, those same things.

7. Self-Improvement. The duty of self-improvement is to act so as to promote ones own good,

i.e., ones own health, security, wisdom, moral goodness, and happiness. Ross himself mentions

"virtue" or "intelligence" in this connection (21).

8. Justice. The duty of justice requires that one act in such a way that one distributes benefits

and burdens fairly. Ross himself emphasizes the negative aspect of this duty: he says that this

type of duty "rests on the fact or possibility of a distribution of pleasure or happiness (or themeans thereto) that is not in accord with the merit of the persons concerned; in such cases

there arises a duty to upset or prevent such a distribution" (21). Thus the duty of justice

includes the duty, insofar as possible, to prevent an unjust distribution of benefits or burdens

The first is a principle on the basis of which good and bad things of any

kind are distinguished. Since St. Thomas cites (pseudo-)Dionysius as the

source of the principle, it is sometimes called the Dionysian Principle:

T1. For something to be good, it must be good in every

respect; for badness, one defect suffices.10

This principle is grounded in St. Thomas definition of goodness as fullness of

being.11

Application of the principle to human actions requires identification of the

various relevant aspects of a human action. St. Thomas identifies four aspects

with respect to which a human action can be good, so this might be called the

Fourfold Goodness Principle. However, only three of these are aspect with

respect to which a human action can also be bad. So the principle is also

sometimes called the Three Determinants Principle:

7/28/2019 Bioethics 4,5,6

3/5

T2a. The four aspects with respect to which a human action

can be good are the genus, the species (or object), the end,

and the circumstances.

T2b. The three aspects with respect to which a human action

can be either good or bad (the three possible defects in a

human action) arethe object, the end, and thecircumstances

Synderesis, inscholasticmoral philosophy, is the natural capacityor disposition (habitus) of the

practical reasonto apprehend intuitively the universalfirst principlesof human action.

Reason is a single faculty, but is called differently according to the end that it assigns to its

search for truth; when its goal is the mere consideration (contemplation) of truth, it is called

speculative reason; when it considers truth in view of action (praxis), it is called practical

reason. In both cases reason uses demonstration (syllogism) as its tool; it proceeds from the

understanding of previously known truths (premises) to the statement of a proposition

(conclusion) whose truth follows necessarily from the premises.

Synderesis is the capacity not only to apprehend the first principles, but also to judge every step

of the practical discourse in the light of those principles. But, as an intellectual disposition

concerned with knowledge of the first principles of action, synderesis provides only the

universal premise of the practical syllogism. Every human action, however, is singular,

contingentand takes place in particular circumstances. To complete the practical discourse and

reach a conclusion regarding what has to be done hic et nunc and what means are to be used,

other capacities are necessary besides synderesis, and to actually effect the action other

faculties are required besides reason.

Oragan harvesting

The first step in an organ harvest is to determine that the donor patient is truly dead. The

medical community defines death in a number of ways; in order to donate organs, someone

must be brain dead. This means that there is no brain activity and no hope of recovery, but the

patient's heart is still beating and the patient is still breathing with the assistance of a

ventilator. A series of tests are conducted to confirmbrain death, ensuring that the patient is

truly, irrevocably dead. This can be traumatic, as the patient appears to be alive, but he or she

is not; sometimes hospital staff must actually use extreme measures to keep the patient alive

so that the organs will continue to be viable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_reasonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_reasonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premisehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premisehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premisehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_premise&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_premise&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingenthttp://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-brain-death.htmhttp://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-brain-death.htmhttp://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-brain-death.htmhttp://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-brain-death.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_premise&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premisehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_reasonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism

7/28/2019 Bioethics 4,5,6

4/5

Role of nurses in maternal-fetal conflict

With the development of patient's rights, a pregnant woman presenting in her final trimester

creates an inherent conflict to the medical provider. To whom do physicians or nurses owe their

first dutythe pregnant woman or the unborn child? Are the rights of the mother subordinated

to those of the unborn child? The nurse's role in these situations is a cautious one, but the

moral and professional obligation inherent in that role is to treat, regardless of the magnitude

of the emotional and moral issues involved. The nurse needs to ensure that the patient's rights

as set forth in the Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretative Statements are adhered to in the

treatment and care plan of each patient.

Who can decide for DNR?

All adult patients can request a DNR order. If you aresick and unable to tell your doctor that you want a DNR order

written, a family member or close friend can decide for you.

UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN A FAMILY MEMBER OR CLOSE FRIEND DECIDE

THAT A DNR ORDER SHOULD BE WRITTEN ?

A family member or close friend can consent to a DNR order

only when you are unable to decide for yourself and you have

not appointed someone to decide for you. Your family member

Or friend can consent to a DNR order when:

- you are terminally ill; or

- you are permanently unconscious; or

- CPR will not work (would be medically futile); or

- CPR would impose an extraordinary burden on you given your

medical condition and the expected outcome of CPR.

Anyone deciding for you must base the decision on yourwishes, including your religious and moral beliefs, or if

your wishes are not known, on your best interests.

The Health Care Proxy Law allows adults to select someone

they trust to make all health care decisions for them when

7/28/2019 Bioethics 4,5,6

5/5

they are no longer able to do so themselves, including

decisions about CPR. You can name someone by filling out a

health care proxy form, which you can get from your physician

or other health care professionals.