The four pillars of medical ethics are respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. They are the same framework as the four principles of medical ethics: a shared way to ask what a doctor owes a patient when the clinical facts alone do not settle the decision. This page explains where the four principles come from, what each one requires, and how to weigh them when they conflict. It is for people preparing to study medicine in Australia.
- What the four pillars of medical ethics are
- Respect for autonomy
- Beneficence
- Non-maleficence
- Justice
- When the principles conflict
-
Four pillars of medical ethics questions
- What are the four pillars of medical ethics?
- Are the four principles of medical ethics a different list?
- Which principle should I follow first?
- Can a patient refuse treatment that would help them?
- What is the difference between beneficence and non-maleficence?
- Does the Australian code of conduct use these four headings?
- Is this the same thing as UCAT situational judgement?
What the four pillars of medical ethics are
The four pillars of medical ethics name four clusters of duty. Respect for autonomy requires respect for the decision-making capacities of autonomous people. Non-maleficence requires not causing harm. Beneficence requires preventing harm, providing benefit, and balancing benefits against risks and costs. Justice requires a fair distribution of benefits, risks, and costs. Tom Beauchamp and James Childress grouped the principles in this way, and more specific rules cannot simply be deduced from them. Source: Beauchamp, The Four Principles Approach to Health Care Ethics.
They published that framework in Principles of Biomedical Ethics in 1979. The approach is usually called principlism, or the four principles approach. The four principles themselves have remained the framework; what developed later was the account of how to specify them for a real case. Source: Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Forty Years of the Four Principles. Teaching materials use the heading “four pillars of medical ethics” for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Source: Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, mini-medical school notes. The pillar label and the four principles of medical ethics are two names for this set.
Raanan Gillon’s 1994 account for clinicians describes the same four as prima facie commitments, plus attention to their scope: to whom the duty applies in this situation. Prima facie, a term from the philosopher W. D. Ross, means the principle is binding unless it conflicts with another moral principle. The four do not provide an ordered rulebook. Source: Gillon, Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope, BMJ, 1994. No principle routinely outranks the others. Where several apply, the case is decided by weighing them, after the facts are clear. Source: University of Washington, Principles of Bioethics.
In Australia, the conduct expected of a registered doctor is set out in Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia, in effect from 1 October 2020. The Medical Board of Australia says the code brings together standards already at the core of practice, that it can be used in medical education, and that it is not an ethics textbook. If the code and the law conflict, the law takes precedence. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice. The four principles are a way to read duties the code states in its own chapters. Applicants meet both while they are still working out how to become a doctor in Australia.
Please move to desktop to view the entire table without additional taps.
| Principle Principle |
The duty it states The duty it states |
A question it asks A question it asks |
|---|---|---|
| Respect for autonomy Respect for autonomy |
Respect and support an autonomous decision Respect and support an autonomous decision |
Does this person understand, and is the choice their own? Does this person understand, and is the choice their own? |
| Beneficence Beneficence |
Prevent harm and provide benefit, balanced against risk and cost Prevent harm and provide benefit, balanced against risk and cost |
What would help this person? What would help this person? |
| Non-maleficence Non-maleficence |
Do not cause harm Do not cause harm |
What harm would this action, or this omission, cause? What harm would this action, or this omission, cause? |
| Justice Justice |
Distribute benefits, risks, and costs fairly Distribute benefits, risks, and costs fairly |
Are like cases being treated alike? Are like cases being treated alike? |
Consent, truthfulness, confidentiality, and the fair use of a scarce treatment are more specific rules inside this framework.
Respect for autonomy
Respect for autonomy is respect for a person’s self-governance: deciding with adequate understanding, free from controlling interference and from limitations that block choice. The duty has a negative side and a positive side. Other people should not control an autonomous action, and professionals should disclose information, check understanding and voluntariness, and support the decision. On this account, an autonomous refusal of a medical intervention is to be respected. Any restriction has to be justified by a competing principle, such as beneficence or justice. Source: Beauchamp, The Four Principles Approach to Health Care Ethics.
Good medical practice puts that duty in the language of Australian practice. Informed consent is a voluntary decision about medical care, made with knowledge and understanding of the benefits and risks. Good practice means giving information in a way the patient can understand, discussing benefits, harms, and material risks, checking that the patient has understood, and giving a genuine opportunity to question or refuse. The patient’s care includes recognising their right to make their own decisions. Decisions about care are shared between doctor and patient, and the patient may want family, a carer, or someone else involved. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, sections 3.1, 3.3, 4.3, and 4.5.
Capacity is the practical limit on this principle. Where the patient lacks capacity, consent comes from a substitute decision-maker, and any advance care directive is taken into account, before an examination, investigation, or treatment. The code’s emergency exception sits beside that rule. Substitute decision-makers include parents, guardians, a person the patient has nominated, and a person legally appointed. Capacity and need can change, so capacity is reassessed when there is reason to do so, and a person with impaired capacity is supported to take part as far as they can. If it is unclear who decides, the code points doctors to the relevant guardianship authority. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, sections 1.4, 4.5, and 4.9.
Children and young people are a further specification. The code says their interests and wellbeing come first, and that their capacity for decision-making and consent still has to be considered. Communication treats them with respect, invites questions, uses language they can understand, and recognises parents or guardians, including encouraging the young person to involve them when that is appropriate. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, section 4.6. The legal test for a young person’s consent is set in state and territory law. This framework tells you to ask the capacity question. It does not replace that law.
Confidentiality belongs with autonomy because it protects the person’s control over information about them. Patients can expect doctors and staff to hold that information in confidence, unless release is required or permitted by law. The same partnership asks the doctor to notice the power imbalance and not exploit it. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, sections 4.2 and 4.4.
A timed question about whether a response protects confidentiality, or supports a decision the person is able to make, is a different exercise from naming the principle. Question types and scoring for that exercise are on the UCAT ® situational judgement page.
Beneficence
Beneficence is the obligation to act for the benefit of the patient. In this framework it covers preventing harm, removing harm, and providing benefit, and it includes balancing benefits against risks and costs. The welfare of the patient is the context of the duty. A doctor who says “do no harm” is, on Beauchamp’s account, usually understood as aiming for a positive balance of good over the harms a treatment inflicts, which is why beneficence stands as its own principle beside non-maleficence. Helping can be owed to the patient, and sometimes the relevant benefit is to other people, as in public health. Source: Beauchamp, The Four Principles Approach to Health Care Ethics.
The obligation is a positive one: to benefit and promote welfare, which is a different demand from avoiding harm. Source: Varkey, Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice. There is no mechanical rule that a duty not to injure always outweighs a duty to help. A trivial harm can be justified by preventing a substantial one. Beauchamp’s example is a blood transfusion that saves a life and inflicts the smaller harm of a needle on the donor. The weights move with the facts, so neither principle always wins. Source: Beauchamp, The Four Principles Approach to Health Care Ethics.
Good medical practice states the clinical form of this duty. In clinical practice, the care of the patient is the primary concern. That includes a suitable plan, referral when referral is in the patient’s best interests or required by law, treatment options based on the best available information, and steps to ease symptoms and distress whether or not a cure is possible. A treatment is recommended when there is a therapeutic need or a clinically recognised treatment, and a reasonable expectation of benefit for this patient. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, sections 3.1 and 3.2.
Beneficence is the work the profession exists to do. The route from applicant to medical school and registration is how to become a doctor in Australia.
Non-maleficence
Non-maleficence is the obligation not to cause harm. Codes of health care ethics have long quoted the maxim primum non nocere, “above all, do no harm”, and ordinary moral rules under the same principle include do not kill, do not cause pain, and do not disable. In practice the maxim asks whether a harm is justified. Surgery, medicines, and even a blood test cause some harm, and harm caused intentionally or negligently is treated as a fundamental wrong. Source: Beauchamp, The Four Principles Approach to Health Care Ethics. The Australian code asks for that judgement in every clinical decision: consider the balance of benefit and harm, provide safe care, and recommend treatment only with a reasonable expectation of benefit. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, section 3.2.
Harm also includes acting outside competence. Good practice means recognising the limits of your knowledge and skill, and working within them. In an emergency, the help you offer takes account of your own safety, your skills, the other options available, and the effect on any other patients already in your care. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, sections 3.2 and 3.5. An interview prompt about a student or a junior doctor asked to do something they are not trained to do is pressing this principle. How those stations are structured and practised is the MMI interview guide.
Justice
Justice, in the four principles, is fair distribution of benefits, risks, and costs. The formal principle accepted inside the approach is that like cases should be treated alike: equals equally, and unequals unequally, in the respects that matter. That formal rule does not say which differences count. Beauchamp and Childress treat justice as a cluster of principles that have to be specified, and they do not offer one theory of justice as a complete answer. Source: Beauchamp, The Four Principles Approach to Health Care Ethics.
For a doctor in Australia, the code specifies several of those respects. Decisions about access to medical care must be free from bias and discrimination. Care is not prejudiced because a doctor believes the patient’s behaviour contributed to the condition. The duty is upheld without discrimination on grounds such as race, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or other grounds covered by antidiscrimination law. Priority for investigating and treating goes to clinical need and to the effectiveness of what is proposed. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, section 3.4.
Wise use of resources is part of that fairness. Doctors have a responsibility to contribute to an effective and efficient healthcare system. Services should be necessary and likely to benefit the patient. The patient’s right to the necessary level of care is upheld, and where possible the doctor helps them reach it. Allocation should be transparent and equitable, and one person’s use of a resource can change what is left for someone else. The code also says there are significant disparities in health in Australia, including the burden of inequity borne by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, and that good practice includes using expertise and influence to address healthcare inequity. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, sections 7.1 to 7.3.
Cultural safety is part of that specification. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme’s definition says cultural safety is determined by those individuals, families, and communities. It asks for care that is safe, accessible, and free of racism, and it includes self-determined decision-making. Culturally safe practice for every community means adapting care, avoiding bias and discrimination, and respecting the patient’s own account of what is safe. It does not require care that is medically unsafe or inappropriate. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, sections 4.7 and 4.8.
A doctor may decline to provide or directly participate in a treatment to which they conscientiously object. They inform the patient and, where relevant, colleagues. The objection is not used to impede access to a treatment that is legal, and moral or religious views are not used to deny access. In some jurisdictions, legislation requires a doctor who will not participate to refer the patient on. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, section 3.4.
How Australia organises hospitals, funding, and access is a separate question from this principle. A scenario that asks whether a response treated someone unfairly, or whether it jumped a fair process, is the work of the UCAT ® situational judgement subtest.
When the principles conflict
The four principles conflict because each is prima facie. A prima facie obligation must be fulfilled unless an equal or stronger obligation overrides it in this circumstance. What ought to be done is what ought to be done all things considered. Beauchamp and Childress use two linked moves. Specification narrows a general norm and gives it more practical content, while keeping a clear connection to the original duty. Balancing judges the weight of the norms that still conflict in this particular case. Balancing is suited to the single case; specification is suited to a rule that should cover similar cases. Neither move is a formula that ranks the four principles in advance. Source: Beauchamp and Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, chapter 1, via Johns Hopkins course copy. Saying the four names aloud leaves the actual duty undecided. An interview is listening for the weighing, tied to the person in the prompt. Doing that against a clock, with a follow-up that changes the facts, is practised in the guide to MMI interviews.
State and territory law fills in capacity, consent for children and young people, and what must happen when a doctor declines to take part in a lawful treatment. Where Good medical practice and the law diverge, the law takes precedence. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, section 1.3.
A capacitated refusal
A competent adult refuses a transfusion or an operation after the benefits, harms, and material risks have been explained in language they understand. Respect for autonomy supports honouring that refusal. Beneficence still requires an honest account of what the treatment would do, and a check that the refusal is informed and voluntary. Family disagreement leaves a capacitated decision standing. The code’s emergency exception, and the move to a substitute decision-maker, apply when capacity is lacking or the situation is an emergency. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, sections 4.3 and 4.5. If capacity is unclear, it is reassessed, and the person is supported to take part as far as they can. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, section 4.9.
A treatment that helps and harms
Most treatments sit between beneficence and non-maleficence. A patient with an acutely infected appendix is in danger from delay, and surgery and anaesthesia carry their own risk. The pattern is to name the harm of acting, name the harm of waiting, and say which is greater for this patient and why. On those facts, the harm of a ruptured appendix outweighs the expected harm of prompt surgery. Source: University of Washington, Principles of Bioethics. The code asks for that balance in every clinical-management decision, and for a recommendation only when benefit can reasonably be expected. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, section 3.2. A different patient, with different risks, can shift the same two principles the other way. The pattern is the weighing.
Who is treated first
Two people need a treatment that cannot be given to both at once. Justice asks which similarities matter. The formal rule, like cases treated alike, does not by itself pick a queue. Source: Beauchamp, The Four Principles Approach to Health Care Ethics. The code’s specification for the doctor in front of the two patients is clinical need and the effectiveness of the proposed care, without disadvantaging someone because of a belief about how they came to be ill, and with an eye on transparent and equitable use of the resource. Source: Medical Board of Australia, Good medical practice, sections 3.4 and 7.2. Beneficence still asks what will help each person. The conflict is real, and the reason for the priority has to be sayable.
Four pillars of medical ethics questions
What are the four pillars of medical ethics?
The four pillars are respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Autonomy is respect for a person’s own informed decision. Beneficence is the duty to help. Non-maleficence is the duty not to cause harm. Justice is fair distribution of benefits, risks, and costs. They are prima facie duties: each stands unless an equal or stronger duty outweighs it in the particular case, and none is ranked first in advance.
Are the four principles of medical ethics a different list?
The four principles of medical ethics are this same framework. Tom Beauchamp and James Childress set them out in Principles of Biomedical Ethics (first published in 1979) as respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. “Four pillars” is the teaching name for that set. Principlism is another name for the approach.
Which principle should I follow first?
Each principle is binding until it conflicts with an equal or stronger principle in the case in front of you. The decision is what ought to be done once the facts are weighed. Beauchamp and Childress, and Gillon’s clinical account, give the four no fixed order. A slogan such as “autonomy always wins” or “never cause any harm” drops the conflict the framework is meant to handle.
Can a patient refuse treatment that would help them?
A capacitated adult’s informed refusal stands, including a refusal of treatment a doctor believes would help. The doctor still explains the benefits, harms, and material risks, and checks that the decision is understood and voluntary. If the patient lacks capacity, a substitute decision-maker is involved and any advance care directive is taken into account. Emergency treatment is the code’s stated exception. For a child or young person, their interests and wellbeing come first, and their own capacity is still considered. The precise legal test depends on the state or territory.
What is the difference between beneficence and non-maleficence?
Beneficence is the positive duty to prevent harm and to provide benefit. Non-maleficence is the duty not to cause harm. They are separated because they conflict: a treatment can help and still hurt. “Above all, do no harm” does not mean a doctor may never impose a risk. It means the harm has to be justified by the good that is sought, for this patient.
Does the Australian code of conduct use these four headings?
Good medical practice is the Medical Board of Australia’s code of professional conduct. The Board describes it as guidance for professional judgement, including in medical education, and states that it is not an ethics textbook. Consent, the balance of benefit and harm, non-discrimination, and fair use of resources appear under the code’s own section headings. If the code and the law conflict, the law takes precedence.
Is this the same thing as UCAT situational judgement?
The four principles are a framework for explaining a duty. The UCAT situational judgement subtest is a timed exam of professional scenarios, with its own question types and a separate score. Confidentiality, consent, safety, and fairness can appear in those scenarios. Preparing for the subtest, including how it is marked, is a different task from learning the principles.