What are the 4 pillars of ethics?

  1. Gillon R: Ethics needs principles - four can encompass the rest - and respect for autonomy should be first among equals. J Medl Ethics. 2003, 29 (5): 307-312. 10.1136/jme.29.5.307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF: Principles of biomedical ethics. 2001, New York: Oxford University Press, 5th

    Google Scholar 

  3. Toulmin S: The tyranny of principles. Hastings Cent Rep. 1981, 1 (6): 31-39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arras J: Getting down to cases: the revival of casuistry in bioethics. J Med Philos. 1991, 16: 29-51. 10.1093/jmp/16.1.29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Saaty TL: The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. 1980, Advanced book program. New York: McGraw-Hill

    Google Scholar 

  6. Self DJ, Baldwin Jr DC, Wolinsky FD: Evaluation of teaching medical ethics by an assessment of moral reasoning. Med Educ. 1992, 26: 178-184. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1992.tb00151.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Self DJ, Schrader DE, Baldwin Jr DC, Wolinsky FD: The moral development of medical students: A pilot study of the possible influence of medical education. Med Educ. 1993, 27: 26-34. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1993.tb00225.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Price J, Price D, Williams G, Hoffenberg R: Changes in medical student attitudes as they progress through a medical course. J Med Ethics. 1998, 24 (2): 110-117. 10.1136/jme.24.2.110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bore M, Munro D, Kerridge I, Powis D: Selection of medical students according to their moral orientation. Med Educ. 2005, 39 (3): 266-275. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02088.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rezler AG, Lambert P, Obenshain SS, Schwartz RL, Gibson JM, Bennahum DA: Professional decisions and ethical values in medical and law students. Acad Med. 1990, 65 (9, Suppl): 31-32. 10.1097/00001888-199009000-00030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rezler AG, Schwartz RL, Obenshain SS, Lambert P, Gibson JM, Bennahum DA: Assessment of ethical decisions and values. Med Educ. 1992, 26: 7-16. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1992.tb00115.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Herbert PC, Meslin EM, Dunn EV: Measuring the ethical sensitivity of medical students: A study at the University of Toronto. J Med Ethics. 1992, 18: 142-147. 10.1136/jme.18.3.142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Westin L, Nilstun T: Principles help to analyse but often give no solution - secondary prevention after a cardiac event. Health Care Anal. 2006, 14 (2): 111-117. 10.1007/s10728-006-0016-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Waltho S: Response to Westin and Nilstun. Health Care Anal. 2006, 14 (2): 119-122. 10.1007/s10728-006-0019-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Landau R, Osmo R: Professional and personal ethical principles. Int J Soc Welf. 2003, 12: 42-49. 10.1111/1468-2397.00007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith CM: Origin and uses of Primum Non Nocere: Above all, do no harm!. J Clin Pharmacol. 2005, 45: 371-377. 10.1177/0091270004273680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gillon R: Medical ethics: Four principles plus attention to scope. Brit Med J. 1994, 309 (5): 184-188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dawson A, Garrard E: In defence of moral imperialism: four equal and universal prima facie principles. J Med Ethics. 2006, 32: 200-204. 10.1136/jme.2005.012591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vaidya O, Kumar S: Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res. 2006, 169: 1-29. 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Barbarosoglu G, Pinhas D: Capital rationing in the public sector using the analytic hierarchy process. The Engineering Economist. 1995, 40 (4): 315-341. 10.1080/00137919508903158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee H, Kwak W, Han I: Developing a business performance evaluation system: An analytic hierarchical model. The Engineering Economist. 1995, 40 (4): 343-357. 10.1080/00137919508903159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mustafa MA, Al-Bahar JF: Project risk assessment using the analytic hierarchy process. IEEE T Eng Manage. 1991, 38: 46-52. 10.1109/17.65759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yau C, Davis T: Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to prioritize auditing tasks for large-scale software systems. J Syst Manage. 1993, 44 (11): 26-31.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gillon R: Four scenarios. J Med Ethics. 2003, 29 (5): 267-268. 10.1136/jme.29.5.267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Triandis HC: Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: 1979. Edited by: Howe HE, Page MM. 1980, Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 195-259.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Blondeau D, Godin G, Gagnea C, Martineau I: Do ethical principles explain moral norm? A test for consent to organ donation. J Appl Biobehav Res. 2004, 9 (4): 230-243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Godin G, Naccache H, Morel S, Ébacher M: Determinants of nurses’ adherence to universal precautions for venipunctures. Am J Infect Control. 2000, 28 (5): 359-364. 10.1067/mic.2000.107594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bélanger D, Godin G, Alary M, Noél L, Côté N, Claessens C: Prediction of Needle Sharing Among Injection Drug Users1. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2002, 32 (7): 1361-1378. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01441.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. DeMarco J: Principlism and moral dilemmas: a new principle. J Med Ethics. 2005, 31 (2): 101-105. 10.1136/jme.2004.007856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kuczewski M: Casuistry and principlism: the convergence of method in biomedical ethics. Theor Med Bioeth. 1998, 19 (6): 509-524. 10.1023/A:1009904125910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/13/10/prepub


Page 2

  2nd position (non-preferred)   Person A
   NM J A B TT C   NM J A B TT C Weights
  NM W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5   1 3 1 1 5 2 0.17
  J 1 W 1 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9   3 1 3 1 5 2 0.20
1 st position ( preferred ) A 1 W 2 1 W 6 W 10 W 11 W 12   1 3 7 1 1 0.27
  B 1 W 3 1 W 7 1 W 10 W 13 W 14   1 1 1 7 5 1 5 0.11
  TT 1 W 4 1 W 8 1 W 11 1 W 13 W 15   1 5 1 5 1 1 5 1 5 0.06
  C 1 W 5 1 W 9 1 W 12 1 W 14 1 W 15   1 2 1 2 1 5 5 0.19

  1. NM = Non-maleficence, J = Justice, A = Autonomy, B = Beneficence, TT = Truth Telling, C = Confidentiality.