Benevolence and non-maleficence are two related concepts that consist of not causing harm to others. Although the two are related, there is a big difference between the two. Beneficence refers to the act of helping others while nonmaleficence 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 to begin with. When you combine both concepts, the main point is that you must act altruistically so as to help the other individual and you do not have to act based on your own beliefs. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay As mentioned above, charity 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, “Beneficence is an action performed for the benefit of others. Beneficial actions can be taken to help prevent or eliminate harm or simply to improve the situations of others” (Pantilat, 2008). The UCSF medical school also provides clinical applications where they mention how doctors “should refrain from causing harm, but also have an obligation to help their patients” (Pantilat, 2008). It certainly seems confusing considering the fact that sometimes, in providing care, patients can be harmed. UCSF also states that there is a difference between mandatory and ideal charity. UCSF states that there is a common confusion between ideal charity and mandatory charity. According to the UCSF School of Medicine, “Ideal beneficence involves extreme acts of generosity or attempts to benefit others on all possible occasions” (Pantilat, 2008). According to UCSF, “physicians are not necessarily expected to live up to this broad definition of beneficence,” yet they are certainly expected to promote the well-being of patients no matter what (Pantilat, 2008). Because of the knowledge that doctors possess, they are obliged to prevent and eliminate harm and to “weigh and balance the possible benefits against the possible risk of an action” (Pantilat, 2008). Not only that, but UCSF expands the definition of charity by stating that it can also include “protecting and defending the rights of others, rescuing people in danger, and helping people with disabilities” (Pantilat, 2008). Below are some examples given by UCSF regarding charity: “resuscitating a drowning victim, providing vaccinations to the general population, or helping someone quit smoking” (Pantilat, 2008). Nonmaleficence as defined above essentially states that one must do no harm no matter what and refrain from providing “ineffective treatments or acting with malice towards patients” (Pantilat, 2008). UCSF points out that this principle offers little useful guidance because many times the therapies or treatments provided by doctors can also have serious risks or consequences (Pantilat, 2008)). According to UCSF, “physicians should not provide ineffective treatments to patients because these offer risks without the possibility of benefit and therefore have the risk of harming 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 balanced by proportionate benefit” (Pantilat, 2008). The reason UCSF states this is because they believe that many procedures and interventions may cause harm relative to the benefits and therefore the doctor must make sure to inform the patient ofall risks before any procedure. And ultimately, the doctor should not pressure the patient to perform any procedure and should allow the patient to decide solely based on the correct information provided to him. An example of nonmaleficence is stopping any drug that has been shown to be harmful or refusing to provide treatment to a patient that has not been shown to be effective in studies. 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 of which have extreme importance in providing a high standard of service in line with the guidance of the General Medical Council (GMP) . Autonomy refers to a patient's freedom of choice regarding their health and treatment. Charity is providing a health benefit. Non-Maleficence means "do no harm." And justice finally emphasizes the need to treat patients in similar circumstances equally. In my opinion, the most important pillar is non-maleficence, a principle that ensures the overall well-being of the patient. For example, in the case of a high-risk pregnancy involving a risk to both the mother and the fetus, in this case the doctor should carry out a risk assessment on "empirical information" to decide how best to treat them to prevent further harm . Non-maleficence is often called the “sister” of beneficence, in the sense that one cannot do without the other. To benefit the patient you should ensure that no harm is done. This is usually the main reason why most people 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 undergo that best suit their values ​​and beliefs, as long as they have the "capacity" to do so. A patient who has no say in treatment may worsen their condition in cases where they feel their religious spiritual beliefs are being violated, harming their mental health. For example, the same woman may decide to refuse abortion in the case 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 which outline that a doctor must "have consent or other valid authority" before providing the treatment. However, respecting his choices may lead to his death in conflict with the principle of non-maleficence. The prima facie nature of these principles means that these principles are “binding unless they conflict with another moral principle – in which case we must choose between them.” This leads the doctor to have to respect his autonomy as long as he has the "capacity" to decide. On the other hand, it would be difficult to evaluate and create a clear judgment on exactly who 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 does not have the 'capacity' to choose which treatments to undergo and therefore her autonomy would not be respected by allowing doctors to follow the principle of charity. and not maleficence. Furthermore, fairness is integral to providing a good clinical service and maintaining trust as required by the GMP. Patients should be prioritized only “on the basis of their clinical needs” and patients should not be “unfairly discriminated against”. This could be applied again to the, 5(3), 235-243.