Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Resolving conflicts among principles: ranking, balancing, and specifying.

Robert M Veatch

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
    |September 1, 1995
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Reconciling Lists of Principles in Bioethics.

    The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2020
    Same author

    Should Institutions Disclose the Names of Employees with Covid-19?

    The Hastings Center report·2020
    Same author

    Organ donor intervention research informed consent - Timing and risk.

    American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons·2019
    Same author

    Access to transplantation for persons with intellectual disability: Strategies for nondiscrimination.

    American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons·2019
    Same author

    Controversies in defining death: a case for choice.

    Theoretical medicine and bioethics·2019
    Same author

    Transplant candidates' perceptions of informed consent for accepting deceased donor organs subjected to intervention research and for participating in posttransplant research.

    American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons·2019

    Resolving conflicts in biomedical ethics principles is crucial. This study examines various strategies, proposing a mixed approach that balances consequentialist and nonconsequentialist principles, with nonconsequentialist principles ranked higher.

    Area of Science:

    • Biomedical Ethics
    • Moral Philosophy

    Background:

    • Existing research focuses on principles in biomedical ethics.
    • Limited attention has been given to resolving conflicts between these principles.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To critically examine strategies for resolving conflicts among competing principles in biomedical ethics.
    • To propose a novel mixed strategy for principle reconciliation.

    Main Methods:

    • Review and analysis of existing conflict resolution strategies.
    • Examination of single-principle theories (libertarianism, utilitarianism, Hippocratism).
    • Evaluation of balancing theories, conflicting appeals, and lexical ordering.

    Main Results:

    • Single-principle theories are insufficient for complex ethical dilemmas.
    Keywords:
    Analytical ApproachBioethics and Professional Ethics

    Related Experiment Videos

  • A mixed strategy balancing consequentialist and nonconsequentialist principles is proposed.
  • Nonconsequentialist principles are lexically ranked over consequentialist ones in the proposed model.

    • Conclusions:

    • Most current ethical specification and rule-generating theories implicitly or explicitly involve lexical ordering.
    • The proposed mixed strategy offers a structured approach to resolving ethical conflicts.
    • Further research into the practical application of this mixed strategy is warranted.