The following is an excerpt from a discussion of Principlism, which we have studied. (https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/principlism) Consider, for example, the question of what health professionals should do when they discover that a patient infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is having unprotected sex with partners who are ignorant of his condition. First, respect for the patient's autonomy supports a policy of medical confidentiality, requiring health professionals not to reveal to others private information discovered in the course of caring for patients. According to this policy, health professionals should do nothing to warn the sexual partners of their HIV-positive patient, as doing so would violate his confidentiality. Second, if there is evidence that public disclosure of the patient's condition would harm him economically, socially, psychologically, or physically, the principle of nonmaleficence would also urge against interfering with his activities. Third, however, the principle of beneficence requires health professionals to benefit others by preventing harm to them, suggesting that they should warn the patient's sexual partners of their risk of infection. Finally, if the patient is intentionally trying to infect his partners with the disease, his behavior is criminal, and the principle of justice will require health professionals to notify the police; even if he is not intentionally trying to infect his patients, justice requires that everyone take responsibility for the public health, and so health professionals would have to alert public health authorities of his activity. Which of the following is true? a. This case shows how the four principles of Principlism can be better understood when we test their application in a challenging case. b. This case gives us a criticism of Principlism: the four principles of the theory are clearly seen to be conflicting with one another, entailing courses of action that contradict each other. c. This case shows that the four principles of Principlism can be applied to determine what course of action is morally right to take when confronted with challenging moral dilemmas. d. This case shows that the precedence of autonomy over the other principles of Principlism allows us to determine what course of action we should follow when confronted with a moral challenge.
The following is an excerpt from a discussion of Principlism, which we have studied. (https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/principlism)
Consider, for example, the question of what health professionals should do when they discover that a patient infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is having unprotected sex with partners who are ignorant of his condition. First, respect for the patient's autonomy supports a policy of medical confidentiality, requiring health professionals not to reveal to others private information discovered in the course of caring for patients. According to this policy, health professionals should do nothing to warn the sexual partners of their HIV-positive patient, as doing so would violate his confidentiality. Second, if there is evidence that public disclosure of the patient's condition would harm him economically, socially, psychologically, or physically, the principle of nonmaleficence would also urge against interfering with his activities. Third, however, the principle of beneficence requires health professionals to benefit others by preventing harm to them, suggesting that they should warn the patient's sexual partners of their risk of infection. Finally, if the patient is intentionally trying to infect his partners with the disease, his behavior is criminal, and the principle of justice will require health professionals to notify the police; even if he is not intentionally trying to infect his patients, justice requires that everyone take responsibility for the public health, and so health professionals would have to alert public health authorities of his activity.
Which of the following is true?
| a. |
This case shows how the four principles of Principlism can be better understood when we test their application in a challenging case. |
|
| b. |
This case gives us a criticism of Principlism: the four principles of the theory are clearly seen to be conflicting with one another, entailing courses of action that contradict each other. |
|
| c. |
This case shows that the four principles of Principlism can be applied to determine what course of action is morally right to take when confronted with challenging moral dilemmas. |
|
| d. |
This case shows that the precedence of autonomy over the other principles of Principlism allows us to determine what course of action we should follow when confronted with a moral challenge. |
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
