Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Public health is fundamentally about making decisions that affect entire communities—sometimes millions of people at once. When you're being tested on public health ethics, you're really being asked to demonstrate that you understand the tension between individual rights and collective well-being, and how professionals navigate that tension responsibly. These principles aren't abstract philosophy; they show up every time a health department decides whether to mandate vaccines, how to allocate limited resources during a crisis, or whether to implement restrictive measures during an outbreak.
The principles you'll learn here fall into distinct categories: respecting individuals, maximizing benefit, ensuring fairness, maintaining trust, and making sound decisions. Exam questions often present scenarios where multiple principles conflict—should you prioritize individual autonomy or community protection? Is transparency always possible when acting on the precautionary principle? Don't just memorize these fifteen principles as a list. Know which category each belongs to, when they might conflict, and how public health professionals weigh competing values in real-world situations.
These principles recognize that even when acting for the greater good, public health must respect the dignity and freedom of individuals. The core tension here is balancing population-level benefits against personal liberty.
Compare: Autonomy vs. Least Restrictive Means—both protect individual freedom, but autonomy focuses on decision-making rights while least restrictive means focuses on how interventions are designed. If an exam asks about vaccine mandates, autonomy addresses whether people can refuse; least restrictive means asks whether mandates are necessary or if education would suffice.
These principles focus on the fundamental purpose of public health: improving health outcomes for populations. They provide the justification for public health action in the first place.
Compare: Beneficence vs. Proportionality—beneficence asks "does this do good?" while proportionality asks "is the good enough to justify the costs?" A quarantine might be beneficent (it protects others), but disproportionate if the disease has low transmissibility. FRQs often test whether students can distinguish these.
Justice-oriented principles address who benefits from public health and who bears its burdens. They're essential for addressing health disparities and ensuring equitable outcomes.
Compare: Justice vs. Protection of Vulnerable Populations—justice is the broad principle of fairness for everyone, while protection of vulnerable populations specifically targets those at greatest risk. Justice might mean equal funding per capita; protection might mean more funding for underserved communities. Know when each applies.
Public health depends entirely on public cooperation. These principles ensure that health authorities maintain the legitimacy and credibility needed to protect communities effectively.
Compare: Transparency vs. Accountability—transparency is about sharing information, while accountability is about accepting responsibility. A health department might be transparent (publishing all data) but not accountable (refusing to acknowledge mistakes). Both are needed for public trust.
These principles provide frameworks for how public health professionals should make choices, especially under conditions of uncertainty or resource constraints.
Compare: Evidence-Based Decision Making vs. Precautionary Principle—these can conflict directly. Evidence-based approaches require solid data before acting; precautionary approaches justify action without complete evidence when stakes are high. Exam scenarios often test whether students recognize when each applies (routine policy vs. emerging pandemic).
| Concept Category | Key Principles |
|---|---|
| Individual Rights | Autonomy, Least Restrictive Means, Non-Maleficence |
| Maximizing Benefit | Beneficence, Proportionality |
| Ensuring Fairness | Justice, Protection of Vulnerable Populations, Reciprocity |
| Building Trust | Transparency, Public Participation, Accountability, Solidarity |
| Decision-Making Frameworks | Evidence-Based Decision Making, Precautionary Principle, Stewardship |
| Balancing Liberty and Protection | Autonomy vs. Beneficence, Least Restrictive Means vs. Proportionality |
| Resource Allocation | Justice, Stewardship, Protection of Vulnerable Populations |
| Crisis Response | Precautionary Principle, Proportionality, Solidarity, Reciprocity |
Which two principles most directly address the tension between individual freedom and community protection? How would you apply them to a mandatory vaccination policy?
Compare and contrast transparency and accountability. Give an example of a public health situation where an agency might demonstrate one but not the other.
If a new respiratory virus emerges with unknown transmission rates, which principle justifies immediate action—and which principle might argue for waiting? How would you balance them?
A city has limited funding for health programs. Using justice, stewardship, and protection of vulnerable populations, explain how you would decide between funding a universal screening program versus a targeted intervention for high-risk communities.
Identify three principles that would be most relevant to an FRQ about quarantine policies during an outbreak. For each, explain whether it would support or limit the use of quarantine.