Beneficence Flashcards
Break down of word beneficence?
Meaning?
Etymology: ‘bene’ means good; ‘facio’ means to do
“Beneficence, as an ideal or principle of conduct, requires us to act in a way that benefits others” (103).
Difference between beneficence and non maleficence
While beneficence involves improving the situations of others, non-maleficence involves not making the situations of others worse.
These are very related: both focus on the consequences of action, but they are distinct in that they involve helping and not hurting respectively.
how is beneficence related to a previously studied ethical theory?
Utilitarianism described maximizing “the good” consequences/
The classical util. theory of the good, as we’ve seen, is that good consequences are defined by happiness and bad consequences are defined by unhappiness.
Another classical util. answer is that good consequences are defined by pleasure and bad ones by pain.
How is nursing concept of beneficence slightly different?
Idea of maximizing health and not “happiness” or pleasure.
Challenges to pursuing “health” as beneficence
Other priorities that aren’t “healthy”
Patient or community level
Health for one can mean the opposite for another
Virtue ethics position on providing responsibility of nurse to provide “health”
Must also provide for oneself.
Duty must be the middle path between self care and caring for patients.
What is the epistomologic issue with nursing advocating for patients?
IF values differ, how can the nurse truly advocate. Sometimes, there is opportunity for paternalism in nursing.
Does beneficence require just the intention to do good, or the actual doing of good in addition to the intentions?
(Note the text gives a different answer than would, say, a utilitarian.)
- Doing good means having more than the intention to do good.
- It also means actually bring about good consequences.
•(NB: The textbook says beneficence ideally involves both. This is a departure from true consequentialism that says intention doesn’t much matter.)
• How does a commitment to the principle of beneficence plausibly diverge from a commitment to classical utilitarianism?
• Classical utilitarianism doesn’t care about intention; only outcomes. Beneficence cares about intentions and outcomes- Both important
• Is the benefit we aim to give others in a healthcare context only a benefit of health? Why or why not?
- Can be defined narrowly, so that it is a biological property. Can be defined very broadly, so that it “includes matters of lifestyle and … psychosocial considerations” (111).
- Many people think health is one good amongst many: devotion to a political or religious cause, personal ambition, or the acquisition and maintenance of wealth.
NO it is not ONLY the benefit of health
• Is the scope of the principle (of beneficence) only the patient?
Does it extend out to the patient’s family, the community, and even healthcare providers themselves? Why or why not?
• The general problem with expanding the scope: benefitting one person sometimes means harming another.
This could also be true of harm to ourselves.
Utilitarianism says we are just as important as anyone else
• What, if anything, defines the limits of the burden the principle may place on a healthcare provider?
- A VE perspective: “the hero sets an unreasonable standard of duty for nursing” (107) So does the nurse “who acts only according to the bare letter of his or her job description or refuses to make any sacrifice for the good of the patient” (107)
- Virtue lies in the path between. It involves a somewhat selfless character.
