Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Abortion, euthanasia, and the limits of principlism

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 14 November 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

Principlism is an ethical framework that has dominated bioethical discourse for the past 50 years. There are differing perspectives on its proper scope and limits. In this article, we consider to what extent principlism provides guidance for the abortion and euthanasia debates. We argue that whilst principlism may be considered a useful framework for structuring bioethical discourse, it does not in itself allow for the resolution of these neuralgic policy discussions. Scholars have attempted to use principlism to analyse the ethics and legality of abortion and euthanasia; but such efforts are methodologically problematic. We close with a consideration of the proper scope of principlism in bioethics–a vision that is more modest than the manner in which principlism is often deployed in contemporary academic bioethics and medical education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable

Change history

Notes

  1. Richard Huxtable, ‘For and against the four principles of biomedical ethics’ (2013) 8(2/3) Clinical Ethics 39, quoting Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Oxford University Press, 6th ed, 2009) 3.

  2. Ibid 41.

  3. Oliver Rauprich, ‘Principlism’ (2013) International Encyclopedia of Ethics 4086, 4087.

  4. Ibid.

  5. Tom Beauchamp, ‘The ‘Four Principles’ Approach to Health Care Ethics’ in Richard Ashcroft, Angus Dawson, Heather Draper and John McMillan (eds), The Principles of Health Care Ethics (John Wiley & Sons, 2007) 3.

  6. Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics 8th ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019) 24–25.

  7. Ibid. 14-17.

  8. Ibid 13.

  9. Ibid.

  10. We thank an earlier reviewer for highlighting this point.

  11. Basil Varkey, ‘Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice’ (2021) 30(1) Medical Principles and Practice 17, 19.

  12. Thomas McCormick, ‘Principles of Bioethics’, UW Medicine, Department of Bioethics and Humanities, (Webpage) < https://depts.washington.edu/bhdept/ethics-medicine/bioethics-topics/articles/principles-bioethics > .

  13. Raanan Gillon, ‘Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope’ (1994) 309(6948) British Medical Journal 184.

  14. McCormick (n 12).

  15. Varkey (n 11) 18.

  16. Ibid.

  17. Beauchamp (n 6) 268.

  18. Beauchamp (n 6) 17-25.

  19. Beauchamp (n 6) 23.

  20. Huxtable (n 1) 39.

  21. Varkey (n 11) 18.

  22. Bernard Gert, Charles Culver and K. Danner Clouser, ‘Common Morality versus Specified Principlism: Reply to Richardson’ (2000) 25(3) Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 308, 308.

  23. McCormick (n 12).

  24. Bernard Gert, Charles Culver and K. Danner Clouser, Bioethics: A Return to Fundamentals (Oxford University Press, 1997).

  25. Jacqualine Lindridge, ‘Principlism: when values conflict’ (2017) 9(4) Journal of Paramedic Practice 158.

  26. Ibid.

  27. National Health and Medical Research Council, National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Canberra: Australian Government, 2018).

  28. Beauchamp (n 6) 1.

  29. Rachel Goldstein, Jennifer Carlson and Nichole Tyson, ‘Dobbs v Jackson Decision: It’s Time to Get Uncomfortable’ (2022) 12(10) Hospital Paediatrics 364.

  30. Franklin Miller, Howard Brody and Kevin Chung, ‘Cosmetic surgery and the internal morality of medicine’ (2000) 9(3) Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 353, 353–364.

  31. Andrew McGee, Melanie Jansen and Sally Sheldon, ‘Abortion law reform: why ethical intractability and maternal morbidity are grounds for decriminalisation’ (2018) 58(5) Australia and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 594, 594–597.

  32. Beauchamp (n 6) 92.

  33. Katie Watson and Julie Chor (eds), Reproductive Ethics in Clinical Practice (Oxford University Press, 2021) 11.

  34. Ibid 11.

  35. Ibid 13.

  36. Ibid 12.

  37. Ibid 12.

  38. Alphonso Gomez-Lobo and John Keown, Bioethics and the Human Goods: An Introduction to Natural Law Bioethics (Georgetown University Press 2015).

  39. Ibid 57.

  40. Nina Roxburgh, ‘Whose rights are the most right? The Dilemma of Autonomy in a Society: On Abortion, Women, and Human Life’, Australian Institute of International Affairs (online, 23 July 2016) < https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/news-item/whose-rights-are-the-most-right-the-dilemma-of-autonomy-in-a-society-on-abortion-women-and-human-life/#_ftn5 > .

  41. Gomez-Lobo (n 38) 55.

  42. Ibid 50-53.

  43. Lorana Bartels and Margaret Otlowski, ‘A Right to Die? Euthanasia and the Law in Australia’ (2010) 17(4) Journal of Law and Medicine 532, 532.

  44. Beauchamp (n 6) 189-191.

  45. Ibid., 191.

  46. Ibid., 188.

  47. Ibid., 189.

  48. Ibid., 155.

  49. Julian Savulescu, ‘Autonomy, Interests, Justice and Active Medical Euthanasia’ in Michael Cholbi and Jukka Varelius, New Directions in the Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (Dordrecht: Springer, 2015); Lucie White, ‘Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the Professional Obligations of Physicians’ 3(10) Emergent Australian Philosophers 1. Gary Seay, ‘Euthanasia and Common Sense: A Reply to Garcia’ (2011) 36(3) The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 321.

  50. George Mendz and David Kissane, ‘Agency, Autonomy and Euthanasia’ (2020) 48(3) Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 555.

  51. Neil Campbell, ‘A problem for the Idea of Voluntary Euthanasia’ (1999) 25(3) Journal of Medical Ethics, 242.

  52. Bernadette Spina, ‘Ethical Justifications for Voluntary Active Euthanasia’, (1998) 3(1) Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest 71 citing Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Oxford University Press, 4th ed, 1994).

  53. Jonas-Sebastien Beaudry, ‘Death as ‘Benefit’ in the Context of Non-Voluntary Euthanasia’ Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics (2022) 43(5–6): 329.

  54. Ibid; Mendz (n 50).

  55. Bonnie Steinbock, ‘The Case for Physician Assisted Suicide: Not (yet) Proven’ (2005) 31(4) Journal of Medical Ethics 235, 236.

  56. Henk Ten Have, ‘Respect for Human Vulnerability: The Emergence of a New Principle in Bioethics’ (2015) 12(3) Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 295, 395–408.

  57. John McMillan, The Methods of Bioethics: An Essay in Meta-Bioethics (Oxford University Press, 2018) 51, 51–53.

  58. Ibid 51.

References

  • Bartels, Lorana, and Margaret Otlowski. 2010. A right to die? Euthanasia and the law in Australia. Journal of Law and Medicine 17 (4): 532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, Tom. 2007. The ‘Four Principles’ approach to health care ethics. In The Principles of Health Care Ethics, ed. Richard Ashcroft, Angus Dawson, Heather Draper, and John McMillan. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, Tom, and James Childress. 1994. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, Tom, and James Childress. 2009. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, Tom, and James Childress. 2019. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Neil. 1999. A problem for the idea of voluntary euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (3): 242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gert, Bernard, Charles Culver, and K. Danner Clouser. 1997. Bioethics: A return to fundamentals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gert, Bernard, Charles Culver, and K. Danner Clouser. 2000. Common morality versus specified principlism: Reply to Richardson. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (3): 308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillon, Raanan. 1994. Medical ethics: Four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ 309 (6948): 184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, Rachel, Jennifer Carlson, and Nichole Tyson. 2022. Dobbs v Jackson Decision: It’s time to get uncomfortable. Hospital Paediatrics 12 (10): e364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Lobo, Alphonzo, and John Keown. 2015. Bioethics and the human goods: An introduction to natural law bioethics. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huxtable, Richard, 2009 ‘For and against the four principles of biomedical ethics’ (2013) 8(2/3) Clinical Ethics 39, 39, quoting Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Oxford University Press, 6th ed,) 3

  • Jonas-Sebastien Beaudry. 2022. Death as ‘benefit’ in the context of non-voluntary euthanasia. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 43 (5–6): 329.

  • Lindridge, Jacqualine. 2017. Principlism: When values conflict. Journal of Paramedic Practice 9 (4): 158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, Thomas. 2018. ‘Principles of Bioethics’, UW Medicine, Department of Bioethics and Humanities, (Webpage). <https://depts.washington.edu/bhdept/ethics-medicine/bioethics-topics/articles/principles-bioethics>

  • McGee, Andrew, Melanie Jansen, and Sally Sheldon. 2018. Abortion law reform: why ethical intractability and maternal morbidity are grounds for decriminalisation. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 58 (5): 594–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, John. 2018. The Methods of Bioethics: An Essay in Meta-Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mendz, George, and David Kissane. 2020. Agency, autonomy and euthanasia. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 48 (3): 555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Franklin, Howard Brody, and Kevin Chung. 2000. Cosmetic surgery and the internal morality of medicine. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9 (3): 353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Health and Medical Research Council (Cth), National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2018)

  • Rauprich, Oliver, (2013) ‘Principlism’. International Encyclopedia of Ethics 4086, 4087

  • Roxburgh, Nina, ‘Whose rights are the most right? The Dilemma of Autonomy in a Society: On Abortion, Women, and Human Life’, Australian Institute of International Affairs (Online, 23 July 2016) <https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/news-item/whose-rights-are-the-most-right-the-dilemma-of-autonomy-in-a-society-on-abortion-women-and-human-life/#_ftn5>

  • Savulescu, Julian. 2015. Autonomy, interests, justice and active medical euthanasia. In New directions in the ethics of assisted suicide and euthanasia, eds. Michael Cholbi and Jukka Varelius. Springer.

  • Spina, Bernadette. 1998. Ethical justifications for voluntary active euthanasia. Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest 3 (1): 71.

  • Steinbock, Bonnie. 2005. The case for physician assisted suicide: Not (yet) Proven. Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (4): 235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ten Have, Henk. 2015. Respect for human vulnerability: The emergence of a new principle in bioethics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12 (3): 295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varkey, Basil. 2021. Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice 30 (1): 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, Katie, and Julie Chor. 2021. Reproductive ethics in clinical practice. In Oxford University Press, ed. Katie Watson and Julie Chor. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this paper

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Technology Sydney Law School, Level 14 UTS Central (Building 2) 61, Broadway, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Brieann Rigby

  2. Human Flourishing Program, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, 12 Arrow Street, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    Xavier Symons

Authors
  1. Brieann Rigby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xavier Symons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xavier Symons.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares there is no competing interests

Ethical approval

Not applicable

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: The original article contained formatting and referencing errors that were a result of the journal’s editing process and not the fault of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rigby, B., Symons, X. Abortion, euthanasia, and the limits of principlism. Med Health Care and Philos 26, 549–556 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10162-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10162-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation