Beneficence and Non-maleficence are two interdependent concepts which consist of not harming others. Although the two are related, there is a big difference between the two. Beneficence refers to the act of helping others while non-maleficence refers to doing no harm. Therefore, the main difference between the two is that beneficence asks you to help others, while non-maleficence asks you not to harm others. When you combine the two concepts, the bottom line is that you should act altruistically in a way that helps the other person and you should not act on your own beliefs. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay As mentioned earlier, beneficence refers to actions that help others. In other words, these actions are performed for the benefit of others. According to the UCSF School of Medicine, “charity is an action done for the benefit of others. Beneficial actions can be taken to help prevent or eliminate harm or simply to improve the situation of others” (Pantilat, 2008). The UCSF School of Medicine also offers clinical applications in which it states that physicians are "expected to refrain from causing harm, but they also have an obligation to help their patients" (Pantilat, 2008). . This certainly seems confusing considering that sometimes in providing care, patients may be harmed. UCSF also mentions that there is a difference between obligatory and ideal beneficence. UCSF mentions that there is common confusion between ideal beneficence and obligatory beneficence. According to the UCSF School of Medicine, “ideal beneficence undermines extreme acts of generosity or attempts to benefit others on every possible occasion” (Pantilat, 2008). According to UCSF, “Physicians are not necessarily expected to live up to this broad definition. "beneficial", but they are most certainly necessary to promote the well-being of patients no matter what (Pantilat, 2008). Due to the knowledge that doctors possess, they are obliged to prevent and eliminate harm and to “weigh the possible benefits and possible risks of an action” (Pantilat, 2008). Not only that, but UCSF expands the definition of charity by saying it can also include "protecting and defending the rights of others, saving people in danger, and helping people with disabilities" (Pantilat, 2008). Here are some examples provided by UCSF in terms of charity: “resuscitating a drowning victim, vaccinating the general population, or helping someone quit smoking” (Pantilat, 2008). Nonmaleficence as previously defined essentially states that you must do no harm no matter what and refrain from providing “ineffective treatment or acting maliciously toward patients” (Pantilat, 2008). UCSF would like to point out that this principle offers little useful guidance, as often the therapies or treatments provided by doctors may also carry serious risks or consequences (Pantilat, 2008). According to UCSF, “physicians should not provide ineffective treatments to patients because these present risks without the possibility of benefit and therefore risk harm to patients” (Pantilat, 2008). The medical school continues to say that "Furthermore, physicians should not do anything that would intentionally harm patients without the action being outweighed by a proportionate benefit."» (Pantilat, 2008). The reason UCSF says this is because it believes that many procedures and interventions can cause harm versus benefit and therefore the doctor must be sure to inform the patient of any risks before any procedure. And ultimately, the doctor should not pressure the patient to undergo a procedure and should only allow the patient to decide based on the appropriate information provided to them. An example of nonmaleficence is stopping any medication that is found to be harmful or refusing to provide a patient with treatment that has not been proven effective in trials. Another example of non-maleficence is not encouraging someone to smoke when you know how harmful it can be. The Four Pillars of Medical Ethics (essay)The four pillars of medical ethics are autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. All are of extreme importance in providing a high level of service, in line with General Medical Council (GMP) guidelines. Autonomy refers to the freedom of patients to choose their health and treatment. Beneficence consists of providing a health benefit. Non-maleficence means “doing no harm”. And justice finally notes that patients in similar circumstances must be treated equally. In my opinion, the most important pillar is non-maleficence, a principle that guarantees the general well-being of the patient. For example, in the case of a high-risk pregnancy that poses a risk to both the mother and the fetus, the doctor will then need to carry out a risk assessment based on "empirical information" in order to decide on the best how to treat them to avoid further damage. Non-maleficence is often considered the “sister” of beneficence in the sense that one cannot be done without the other. For the patient to benefit, you must ensure that there is no harm either. This is usually the main reason why most choose a medical profession, to help people get better, both mentally and physically. It could also be argued that another important principle is patient autonomy. A patient should be able to decide which treatments to pursue that best fit their values ​​and beliefs, provided they have the “capacity.” A patient who does not have a say in their treatment may worsen their condition if they feel that their spiritual religious beliefs are being violated, thereby harming their mental health. For example, the same woman may decide to refuse an abortion in the event of a life-threatening pregnancy for religious reasons. In this case, a doctor who forcibly aborts the fetus deviates from the guidelines set out by the GMP, according to which the doctor must “have consent or other valid authority” before providing treatment. However, respecting one's choices can lead to one's death in conflict with the principle of non-maleficence. The prima facie nature of these principles means that they are “binding unless they conflict with another moral principle – if that is the case, we must choose between them.” This therefore leads the doctor to respect his autonomy provided that he has the “capacity” to decide. On the other hand, it would be difficult to assess and create a clear judgment on who exactly is mentally capable and to what extent. For example, if the same woman suffered from a mental disorder such as a personality disorder, it could be said that she did not have the "capacity" to choose the treatments she would undergo and therefore her autonomy would not be not respected, which would allow doctors to follow the principle of beneficence. and non-maleficence. Furthermore, justice, 5(3), 235-243.