upgrade
upgrade

Bioethics Principles

Study smarter with Fiveable

Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.

Get Started

Why This Matters

Bioethics isn't just a list of vocabulary words—it's the framework you'll use to analyze every controversial biotechnology scenario on your exams. Whether you're evaluating CRISPR gene editing, clinical trials, or environmental release of GMOs, these principles are the tools that help you construct reasoned arguments. You're being tested on your ability to identify which principles apply, recognize when they conflict, and justify decisions using ethical reasoning.

Think of these principles as falling into three categories: patient-centered principles (protecting individuals), society-centered principles (ensuring fairness and sustainability), and process principles (how decisions should be made). When an exam question presents an ethical dilemma, your job is to identify the competing principles at stake and weigh them against each other. Don't just memorize definitions—know what each principle protects and when it might conflict with another.


Patient-Centered Principles

These principles focus on protecting individual rights and well-being. They form the foundation of medical ethics and are often the first considerations in any biotechnology application involving human subjects.

Respect for Autonomy

  • Self-determination—individuals have the right to make informed decisions about their own bodies and healthcare without coercion
  • Patient agency requires that healthcare providers present options and allow patients to choose, even if the provider disagrees with the choice
  • Foundational to biotech debates about genetic testing, enhancement, and reproductive technologies where personal choice is paramount

Beneficence

  • "Do good"—the ethical obligation to act in ways that benefit the patient and promote their well-being
  • Active duty means healthcare providers and researchers must seek opportunities to help, not just avoid harm
  • Drives innovation in biotechnology by justifying the development of new treatments, therapies, and interventions

Non-maleficence

  • "Do no harm"—the obligation to avoid causing injury, suffering, or unnecessary risk to patients
  • Risk assessment requires weighing potential harms against benefits before proceeding with any intervention
  • Applies to unintended consequences, including long-term effects and environmental impacts of biotechnological releases

Compare: Beneficence vs. Non-maleficence—both concern patient welfare, but beneficence is active (do good) while non-maleficence is restrictive (avoid harm). When a treatment has both benefits and risks, these principles create tension. If an FRQ asks you to evaluate an experimental therapy, discuss both.

Dignity

  • Inherent worth—every individual deserves respect regardless of their health status, genetic makeup, or social position
  • Protects against objectification of patients as mere research subjects or sources of biological material
  • Relevant to debates about cloning, genetic discrimination, and end-of-life care where human value is questioned

Society-Centered Principles

These principles extend ethical consideration beyond individual patients to address fairness, collective well-being, and long-term sustainability.

Justice

  • Fair distribution—healthcare resources, treatments, and research benefits should be allocated equitably across populations
  • Addresses disparities in access to biotechnology innovations based on socioeconomic status, geography, or demographics
  • Central to debates about who benefits from expensive gene therapies and who bears the risks of clinical trials

Vulnerability

  • Special protections—certain populations (children, prisoners, economically disadvantaged, cognitively impaired) face heightened risk of exploitation
  • Research ethics requires additional safeguards when vulnerable groups are involved in studies
  • Recognizes power imbalances that may compromise truly voluntary participation in biotechnology applications

Compare: Justice vs. Vulnerability—justice focuses on fair distribution across all populations, while vulnerability focuses on extra protection for specific at-risk groups. Both address inequality, but vulnerability triggers additional procedural safeguards rather than just resource allocation.

Stewardship

  • Responsible management—ethical obligation to protect resources (environmental, financial, genetic) for current and future generations
  • Sustainability focus requires considering long-term impacts of biotechnology on ecosystems and biodiversity
  • Applies to GMO releases, biobanking of genetic material, and resource allocation in healthcare systems

Precautionary Principle

  • Act before certainty—when potential harm is serious or irreversible, preventive action is justified even without complete scientific proof
  • Burden of proof shifts to those proposing new technologies to demonstrate safety rather than opponents to prove harm
  • Highly relevant to environmental biotechnology, gene drives, and novel organisms where long-term effects are unknown

Compare: Stewardship vs. Precautionary Principle—stewardship emphasizes ongoing responsible management of resources, while the precautionary principle specifically addresses decision-making under uncertainty. Use stewardship for sustainability arguments; use precautionary principle when discussing unknown risks.


Process Principles

These principles govern how ethical decisions should be made, ensuring that procedures themselves are ethically sound.

  • Full disclosure—individuals must receive complete information about risks, benefits, and alternatives before agreeing to participate
  • Comprehension required—consent is only valid if the person truly understands the information, not just signs a form
  • Ongoing process that continues throughout treatment or research, allowing withdrawal at any time

Confidentiality

  • Privacy protection—personal health information and genetic data must be safeguarded from unauthorized access
  • Trust foundation enables honest patient-provider relationships and encourages participation in research
  • Legally enforced through regulations like HIPAA, with serious consequences for breaches

Compare: Informed Consent vs. Respect for Autonomy—autonomy is the underlying principle (people have the right to self-determination), while informed consent is the procedural mechanism that protects autonomy in practice. An FRQ might ask how informed consent operationalizes autonomy.


Quick Reference Table

ConceptBest Examples
Individual RightsRespect for Autonomy, Dignity, Informed Consent
Patient WelfareBeneficence, Non-maleficence
Fairness & EquityJustice, Vulnerability
Environmental & Future ConcernsStewardship, Precautionary Principle
Trust & PrivacyConfidentiality
Decision-Making ProceduresInformed Consent, Precautionary Principle
Protection from HarmNon-maleficence, Vulnerability, Precautionary Principle

Self-Check Questions

  1. Which two principles both address patient welfare but create tension when a treatment has significant risks and benefits? How would you weigh them?

  2. A pharmaceutical company wants to test an experimental drug in a low-income country where regulations are less strict. Which principles are most relevant, and why might they conflict?

  3. Compare and contrast informed consent and respect for autonomy—how does one serve as the practical application of the other?

  4. A scientist proposes releasing genetically modified mosquitoes to combat malaria, but long-term ecological effects are unknown. Which principles support proceeding? Which urge caution?

  5. If an FRQ presents a scenario where a patient's family wants information the patient has asked to keep confidential, which principles are in conflict, and how would you resolve the dilemma?