This blog is about non maleficence.What does non maleficence mean? What are the underlying principles? What is the significant of this to professional people and others? Are we evil if we harm others unintentionally or even intentionally but its because of their benefit?
These questions are mostly in the mind of people whose in the medical field.
The term "nonmaleficence" derives from the ancient maxim primum non nocere, which, translated from the Latin, means "first, do no harm." Professionals in the health sciences, and in public health practice in particular, have a tradition of utilitarian approaches, meaning that the greatest good should be accomplished through any public health action. Obligations not to harm others (e.g., through theft, disablement, or killing) are clearly distinct from, and usually more stringent than, obligations to help others (e.g., by providing benefits, protecting interests, and promoting welfare). For example, the obligation not to injure others is a societal expectation, whereas the act of rescuing someone in danger is generally considered a heroic act.
The principle of beneficence requires us, other things being equal, to do good, or what will further the patient's interest. The principle of non maleficence requires us, other things being equal, to avoid harm to the patient, or what would be against the patient's interests.
The difference between the principles rests on the character of the avoidance of positive harm and the demand for positive benefit.
In a particular instance, for example, of standing by and watching a person who is undergoing a procedure done by an assistant, I might satisfy the principle of non maleficence by not causing needless pain, but violate the principle of beneficence by not preventing pain.