Beneficence vs. Non-maleficence - Essay Example

In the young age days, being good has a simple definition. There was nothing much to understand about the moral lesson of being good and caring about the impact of your actions on others. When you were young, you were told that an evil man would come to get you if your behavior was not at its best. Furthermore, you would be told that Santa won't pass by to bring you toys because of bad behavior. In essence, the ethics of Santa about the 'goodness' of your actions based on a particular social utility are not defined.

Deciding to be useful is a great deal. Well, if you are not good, you have a lot to put in to redefine your morality aspect is implemented in daily life. If you want to take the step, here are some of the ways of practicing beneficence: Beneficence Beneficence is one of the means of being useful. In the science of UCSF medicine, one acts accordingly to benefit other people. Ideally, beneficence revolves around mercy, empathy, and kindness. From the UCSF baseline, it does not involve doing something good for somebody so that you can benefit in the end.

Simply put, you do good because you want your actions to be of significant help to someone else. Many at times, beneficence also depicted an act of keeping someone safe from harm. On many occasions, it may significantly mean that you want to make someone's situation better than what it currently is (Pantilat, 2008). Occasionally, people confuse benevolence and beneficence. While the two terms are almost similar, benevolence is more of a personal trait. On the other hand, beneficence focuses more on empathy.

Primarily, the UCSF school of medicine explains the significance of some clinical applications in medicine. It presents how physicians are required to avoid causing harm to patients. Instead, they are obliged to assist their patients in the best way they know (Pantilat, 2008). Interestingly, the fact that patients can undergo pain as care administered to them is contradictory. In the explanation of UCSF, the difference between ideal and obligatory beneficence was pinpointed. The UCSF school puts it that ideal beneficence involves extensive actions of unlimited generosity.

Similarly, it also depicts efforts to benefit someone in the best way possible (Pantilat, 2008). According to UCSF, medical practitioners are not required to live up to the definitions of beneficence by all means. However, their principal obligation in medicine is to do whatever it takes to promote the excellent welfare of sick people (Pantilat, 2008). Ideally, physicians are highly trained and equipped with significant knowledge to practice medicine without harm. Therefore, they must weigh different circumstances to identify the benefit and the harm of undertaking an action (Pantilat, 2008).

Additionally, the UCSF school expands that beneficence also protects and defends the human rights of others. The UCSF also depicts that people who are in danger or harm have to be rescued. Similarly, persons with disabilities should also be assisted to benefit (Pantilat, 2008). Non-Maleficence Non-maleficence states that one should not cause harm to other people. Moreover, non-maleficence also implies that one should avoid malice acts and unfair treatments of patients (Pantilat, 2008). Furthermore, the UCSF school points out that some treatment and therapy procedures in medicine may have consequences on sick people (Pantilat, 2008).

Regarding UCSF, medical practitioners should refrain from providing treatments that impose risks that can harm the ill (Pantilat, 2008). According to the school, physicians should also refrain from actions that harm patients intentionally. Before acting, the physicians should benefit their action with a professional advantage (Pantilat, 2008). From the baseline of non-maleficence, the UCSF believes that procedures and interventions in medicine may harm a patient and cause benefits at the same time.

Therefore, physicians should advise their patients on the risks and benefits of a particular procedure before embarking on it. Similarly, a patient decides treatment or the more comfortable system for treatment. In non-maleficence, the physicians are not allowed to harm patients by pressuring into choosing particular treatment procedures (Pantilat,2008).