Three widely accepted principles – autonomy, beneficence and justice – provide a useful analytic framework for considering controversies and conflicts in bioethics. Since these principles capture key concepts found in diverse normative theories they provide a starting point from which consistent ethical analysis and comparison can begin. While justice is commonly discussed in the business ethics literature, the other two principles are not widely discussed. This paper investigates whether the principles of autonomy and beneficence provide a framework that is equally (...) useful for framing issues in business ethics. It is argued that they do. First, the principle of autonomy, with its associated notions of informed consent, privacy, confidentiality, voluntariness, self-mastery, and so on, provides a consistent approach to the analysis of diverse issues that arise in business ethics from market research to recruitment practices. Second, it is argued that the relationships between a business and its stakeholders ground duties of beneficence. The principle of beneficence provides a framework for considering the issues that arise in these relationships. (shrink)

While there is increasing pressure on scarce health care resources, advances in medical science have blurred the boundary between life and death. Individuals can survive for decades without consciousness and individuals whose whole brains are dead can be supported for extended periods. One suggested response is to redefine death, justifying a higher brain criterion for death. This argument fails because it conflates two distinct notions about the demise of human beings--the one, biological and the other, ontological. Death is a biological (...) phenomenon. This view entails the rejection of a higher brain criterion of death. Moreover, I claim that the justification of the whole brain (or brain stem) criterion of death is also cast into doubt by these advances in medical science. I proceed to argue that there is no need to redefine death in order to identify which treatments ought to be provided for the permanently and irreversibly unconscious. There are already clear treatment guidelines. (shrink)

The current voluntary posthumous organ donation policy fails to provide sufficient organs to meet the demand. In these circumstances xenografts have been regarded as an expedient solution. The public perception seems to be that the only impediments to this technology are technical and biological. There are, however, important ethical issues raised by xenotransplantation that need to be considered as a matter of urgency. When the ethical issues raised by using non-human animals to provide replacement organs for human beings are considered (...) in a wider context and the possible alternatives to xenotransplantation are taken into account, a new dimension is added to the debate. In this broader context it is argued that a less ethically problematic solution is to adopt a presumed consent or opt-out organ procurement policy to regulate posthumous organ harvesting from humans. If there are still too few organs available, then the whole question of transplantation must be reassessed. (shrink)