Full Answer Teleology extends beyond just ethics, and refers to any aspect of existence with a definite end, whether in human behavior or in nature.
This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license http: This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract The article is divided into three sections: Rather than maintaining the superiority of one position over the others, the main aim of the article is to summarize the basic approaches proposed thus far concerning the development of public health ethics by describing and comparing the various ideas in the literature.
With this in mind, an extensive list of references is provided. Clinical Ethics and Public Health Ethics Clinical practice is characterized by a personal physician-patient relationship [ 1 ]. Conversely, public health practice is characterized by global attention to whole populations and therefore by an emphasis on collective health conditions, prevention, and social, economic, and demographic determinants of health and disease [ 2 ].
The historical relationship between clinical ethics and public health ethics is the subject of debate: Some authors suggest that public health ethics, in addition to its slower and more recent historical development, is actually in conflict with clinical ethics: Most of the authors ascribe this difference to the utilitarian nature of public health.
For example, Bayer and Fairchild attribute the origins of this discrepancy to the eminently utilitarian approach of public health, which is aimed at maximizing collective well-being even to the detriment of individual care [ 5 ].
There are also middle positions.
In this sometimes debated area, it is highly significant to note the absence of chapters devoted specifically to public health ethics in the majority of books on the history of bioethics and medical ethics [ 10 — 16 ]. Similarly, books discussing the theoretical basis of bioethics usually have not discussed the foundations of public health ethics until recent years.
This characteristic seems to be present in books from various cultural and linguistic contexts, including English [ 17 ], French [ 18 ], and Italian [ 19 ].
On the other hand, the historical perspective on the ethics of public health is not disregarded in public health texts [ 2021 ].
This situation is meaningful: Regardless of potentially different interpretations of its historical development, interest in public health ethics is undoubtedly growing on at least three levels: In other words, if there was actually a delay in the emergence of public ethics with respect to clinical ethics during the early years in which bioethics began to become consolidated as an autonomous field of study during the seventies and eighties, then during the nineties that gap was closed.
This evolution has been pointed out by Kass, who published a historical analysis of public health ethics insubdividing it into two main periods: Since the nineties, the increasing importance of ethical issues in the debates about public health policies has become evident in different cultural contexts.
Many aspects of public health ethics have been extensively developed in anglophone countries. Among others, one example is the ethics of infectious diseases [ 28 ]: Dawson and Verweij have provided important contributions to this field [ 29 ].
Different Assessments There are evident differences not only regarding the relationship between clinical and public health ethics, as pointed out in the previous section, but also regarding the assessment of the primary cultural and philosophical models grounding public health ethics.
The Utilitarian Roots of Public Health and the Conflicts between Individual and Social Interests Several authors have also pointed out that great importance has been afforded to autonomy—and therefore to issues such as informed consent, confidentiality, and so forth—in contemporary bioethics, to the point that it has become at least a primus inter pares if not a clearly superseding principle.
The principle of autonomy has tended to dominate healthcare ethics especially in North America [ 32 ]. On the contrary, however, public health is based predominantly on population-level utility, making it more attentive to issues such as epidemics, social determinants of health, and cost-effective decision making: This utilitarian approach is often connected to the question of an alleged paternalism in public health: Consequently, as indicated already in Section 1, most ethical problems in public health are characterized by tension between private or individual interests and public or social interests.Jan 18, · Different Assessments.
There are evident differences not only regarding the relationship between clinical and public health ethics, as pointed out in the previous section, but also regarding the assessment of the primary cultural and philosophical models . Consequentialist or sometimes Teleological Moral Theories.
--Theories on ethics are deontological (duty)--any ethical system that is based on duty. Where do advance directives such as living wills and durable powers of attorney fit into the distinction between voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia?
Explain the difference between deontological and teleological approaches to decision making. Deontological approaches to decision making look at the action and decide whether it is right or wrong.
Teleological and deontological approaches to topics vary by their focus, with teleological approaches based on intended end effects and deontological approaches based on adherence to set rules. These terms are most often found together in the study of ethics. Teleological ethics are also often.
Teleological Theory vs Deontological Theory Consequentialist Theories (or Teleological Theories): or a specific value based ethics. meaning that the one child may be of some importance that would increase the benefit of saving the one over the other two.
Again this is the flexibility of teleology. tial difference between deontological and teleological theories lies in the role that is attributed to the consequences of the action under review. Principles of deontology.