Ethical Principles for Human Experimentation and Research

The Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles that govern human experimentation and research. It was created by the World Medical Association and first adopted in 1964. The Declaration builds on the Nuremberg Code, which is a set of ethical principles for human experimentation that was developed after World War II. Additionally, the European Convention on Human Rights applies to human rights and freedoms in Europe.

Healthcare Ethics and Conflicting Principles

British physician Thomas Percival is credited with developing the first modern code of healthcare ethics, which prioritizes the principle of non-maleficence. This principle dictates that a clinician’s primary obligation is to avoid causing harm to the patient, even if it means overriding the patient’s autonomy. This idea has been echoed in classical medical writings and is a fundamental rule in common morality.

In the given scenario, the clinician chooses not to prescribe clozapine, which is likely to cause neutropenia, in order to avoid causing harm to the patient. This decision is in line with the principle of non-maleficence.

However, the principle of autonomy recognizes an individual’s right to self-determination, which can sometimes conflict with the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. The principle of beneficence requires clinicians to act in the patient’s best interest and prevent harm.

Teleology is an ethical theory that evaluates actions based on their final outcome of causality.

In 1977, Engel introduced the term ‘biopsychosocial model’ in an article for Science, advocating for a more comprehensive approach to understanding psychiatric illness. The biomedical model, which originated in the mid 19th Century, has been widely used. Aaron Beck has promoted the diathesis-stress model of psychopathology in relation to depression. August Weismann developed genetic determinism in 1890. Brown and Stewart, among others, have advocated for patient-centred care.

The doctor is adhering to the principle of respecting the patient’s autonomy, allowing them to make their own decisions about their treatment. The four principles of medical ethics, as proposed by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, include nonmaleficence (avoiding harm), justice (fair distribution of resources), and beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest).

The Nuremberg Code is a set of ethical principles for human experimentation that emerged from the Nuremberg trials after World War II. It includes guidelines such as obtaining informed consent, avoiding harm to participants, and not conducting experiments that may result in death.

The Helsinki Declaration, established by the World Medical Association, is another set of ethical principles for human research. It has been amended several times since its adoption in 1964 and provides guidelines for conducting research with human subjects.

The Declaration of Geneva is a statement of a physician’s commitment to the humanitarian goals of medicine. It was created as a revision of the Hippocratic oath and has been amended and revised over time.

The Nightingale Pledge is a statement of ethical principles for the nursing profession. It outlines the responsibilities and commitments of nurses to their patients and the healthcare system.

Beauchamp and Childress have identified four fundamental moral principles that form the basis of clinical ethics: respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Respecting a patient’s autonomy involves acknowledging their right to make decisions, even if those decisions may not seem wise. To obtain informed consent, patients must be fully informed about the treatment and its potential outcomes, and they must have the capacity to understand and weigh the information before making a decision. Non-maleficence requires healthcare providers to avoid causing harm, while beneficence involves balancing the potential benefits of a treatment against its risks. Finally, justice requires that healthcare providers act fairly and equitably. When a patient lacks the capacity to make decisions about their care, healthcare providers must act in the patient’s best interests, taking into account their previous views and consulting with relevant parties.

The Durham rule states that an individual cannot be held criminally responsible if their unlawful actions were a result of a mental disease of defect. The M’Naghten rule, on the other hand, states that a person is not guilty by reason of insanity if they were unaware of the nature and quality of their actions due to a mental disease, of if they knew their actions were wrong. Additionally, the common law principle of necessity allows for reasonable force and necessary treatment to be used on individuals who lack capacity.

The four moral principles are a useful tool in clinical practice. For instance, if a patient arrives in critical condition after a car accident and is unable to provide informed consent, the principle of beneficence requires healthcare professionals to prioritize treatment for the patient. The principle of justice may also be considered if there are many patients in need of care of if the treatment is expensive of scarce, potentially depriving others of medical attention. Non-maleficence is relevant if the treatment is likely to cause more harm than good. Respect for autonomy is important if the patient has previously expressed a desire to decline treatment in such circumstances.

The capacity of an individual to make decisions is specific to the decision being made and can change over time. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 aims to protect and empower those who may lack capacity to make certain decisions. The Act is based on five key principles, including the assumption that every adult has the right to make their own decisions unless proven otherwise, the provision of practical help before assuming lack of capacity, and the importance of making decisions in the best interests of the individual. Additionally, any actions taken on behalf of someone lacking capacity should be the least restrictive of their basic rights and freedoms. It is important to note that an unwise decision does not necessarily indicate a lack of capacity.

Beauchamp (1993) argued that paternalism only applies to individuals who are capable of making decisions for themselves. In cases where an individual lacks autonomy, healthcare staff have a duty to make decisions on their behalf in their best interests. This includes preventing non-autonomous individuals from attempting suicide.

Deep autonomy provides further justification for paternalistic suicide prevention measures. While acknowledging an autonomous person’s right to take their own life, it could be argued that intervening in a suicide attempt allows the person to reflect and reconsider their decision.

The ‘cry for help’ model can also justify paternalistic interventions as individuals can be given help in finding happiness rather than resorting to suicide in a moment of hopelessness.

However, longer-term suicide prevention measures are generally criticized in the literature, especially in the case of autonomous individuals. Detaining an autonomous individual in a psychiatric hospital for an extended period solely to prevent suicide would be an unjustifiable abuse of civil liberty in the vast majority of cases.