Introduction

Medical school interviews aren’t just about knowing why you want to be a doctor. Ethics questions are common, and they can throw off even the most prepared applicants. Interviewers aren’t looking for memorized answers—they want to see how you think through tough situations, where different values and responsibilities might be in conflict.

At the heart of these discussions are medical ethics principles, the core ideas that guide decision-making in healthcare. These principles—beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice—shape everything from patient care to public health policies. They influence decisions about treatment options, confidentiality, and even how limited resources are distributed. Understanding these concepts isn’t just helpful for interviews—it’s essential for practicing medicine.

Ethical dilemmas in medicine don’t come with easy answers. A patient refuses life-saving treatment. A doctor must decide who gets the last available ICU bed. Confidentiality clashes with public safety. These are the kinds of challenges physicians face, and they require balancing multiple ethical perspectives.

Medical schools use these questions to see how you apply reasoning, fairness, and judgment under pressure. The goal isn’t to be perfect—it’s to demonstrate a structured approach and show that you can think critically when faced with difficult choices.

1. Beneficence

1.1 Definition and Role in Medicine

Beneficence is one of the core medical ethics principles that guides healthcare professionals in decision-making. It refers to the responsibility of physicians to act in a way that benefits patients. This goes beyond simply providing treatment—it includes preventing harm, protecting well-being, and improving a patient’s condition whenever possible. The idea is that a doctor’s actions should contribute to a positive outcome for the patient, whether through medical intervention, preventive care, or guidance on lifestyle changes.

The concept of beneficence has deep historical roots. The Hippocratic Oath emphasizes the duty to help patients, which aligns with this principle. Over time, beneficence has evolved to include more than just direct medical treatment. It applies to everything from recommending the best course of action for a patient to advocating for public health measures that improve community well-being.

Physicians are expected to weigh the risks and benefits of any decision to ensure they are truly acting in the patient’s best interest. This includes considering long-term consequences, potential side effects, and the psychological impact of a diagnosis or treatment plan. Beneficence plays a role in every area of medicine, from emergency care to chronic disease management, shaping the way doctors interact with patients and make clinical decisions.

1.2 Balancing Beneficence with Other Ethical Principles

While beneficence is a key part of medical ethics principles, it doesn’t exist in isolation. It often conflicts with other ethical obligations, particularly autonomy and nonmaleficence. Balancing these principles is one of the biggest challenges in ethical decision-making.

One of the most common conflicts is between beneficence and autonomy. While beneficence encourages doctors to take actions that benefit the patient, autonomy recognizes a patient’s right to make their own medical decisions. A patient might refuse a treatment that a physician strongly believes is beneficial. In such cases, respecting the patient’s choice means accepting an outcome that may not align with what the doctor considers best. For instance, a cancer patient may decline chemotherapy due to its side effects, even if it could extend their life. The physician must respect this decision while ensuring the patient fully understands the consequences.

Nonmaleficence, which means avoiding harm, can also come into tension with beneficence. A treatment might improve a patient’s condition but come with significant risks or discomfort. Surgery, for example, can be life-saving but also carries complications. Doctors must weigh whether the potential benefits justify the risks involved. Pain management in terminal illness is another example. High doses of medication may ease suffering but also hasten death. Here, physicians have to consider whether the relief provided outweighs potential harm, a dilemma often seen in palliative care.

Justice is another ethical principle that intersects with beneficence. Resources in healthcare are limited, and ensuring fair distribution can mean that individual patients do not always receive the most beneficial treatment available. If a hospital has a limited number of ventilators during a crisis, doctors must decide how to allocate them, balancing beneficence with fairness. These kinds of decisions require ethical reasoning, as they affect not just individual patients but the healthcare system as a whole.

1.3 Challenges in Applying Beneficence in Practice

While beneficence is a clear concept in theory, applying it in real-world medical practice comes with significant challenges. Medicine involves uncertainty, and what seems beneficial in one situation may have unintended consequences. Doctors often have to make decisions without knowing the full outcome, which makes beneficence difficult to apply consistently.

One challenge is determining what truly benefits a patient. In some cases, the right course of action isn’t obvious. A treatment might improve physical health but negatively impact a patient’s mental or emotional well-being. For example, a life-saving procedure might leave a patient with long-term disabilities, which could significantly affect their quality of life. Physicians must weigh these factors, understanding that what is medically effective isn’t always what the patient considers beneficial.

Cultural and personal values also play a role. What one person sees as beneficial, another might not. Different cultural perspectives influence how patients view medical interventions. Some patients prefer aggressive treatment, while others prioritize comfort and quality of life. Physicians need to consider these differences when making recommendations, ensuring they respect personal and cultural values while still acting within ethical boundaries.

Resource limitations are another barrier to beneficence. In an ideal world, doctors would always provide the best possible care, but healthcare systems don’t work that way. Time, money, and medical supplies are finite. A physician may want to prescribe a cutting-edge medication, but if it’s expensive or unavailable, they may have to choose a less effective alternative. Hospitals must also consider staff shortages, bed availability, and treatment costs, which can impact how much care a patient receives.

Legal and institutional policies can also restrict beneficence. Physicians must work within established guidelines, even if they believe an alternative approach would be more beneficial. Informed consent laws, for example, mean that a doctor cannot force treatment on a patient, even if refusing it puts the patient at risk. Similarly, strict regulations around controlled substances can make pain management more difficult, affecting a doctor’s ability to prioritize a patient’s comfort.

Despite these challenges, beneficence remains central to ethical medical practice. Physicians must navigate these obstacles by using ethical reasoning, clear communication, and patient-centered care. While beneficence alone doesn’t dictate every decision, it remains a guiding principle in ensuring that medical treatment is focused on positive outcomes and patient well-being.

2. Nonmaleficence

2.1 Definition and Importance

Nonmaleficence is one of the core medical ethics principles that ensures doctors avoid harming patients. It is closely tied to the well-known phrase “do no harm,” which comes from the Hippocratic Oath. While beneficence focuses on actively doing good, nonmaleficence requires physicians to prevent harm whenever possible. This applies to direct actions, like avoiding unnecessary procedures, and indirect ones, like minimizing the risks of treatment.

In medical practice, harm isn’t always easy to define. Some treatments that benefit a patient in one way may cause harm in another. This is why physicians need to weigh decisions carefully, ensuring that any harm caused is outweighed by potential benefits. Avoiding harm also means recognizing when interventions may do more damage than good. In some cases, choosing not to treat can align with nonmaleficence, especially when aggressive medical care would lead to more suffering.

Nonmaleficence also extends beyond individual patients. Public health decisions, hospital policies, and medical research must all consider whether actions could cause harm to larger populations. Vaccination policies, for example, are based on minimizing harm by preventing disease outbreaks, even if they involve some risks. Similarly, clinical trials must balance the need for new treatments with the ethical obligation to prevent unnecessary suffering in study participants.

2.2 Weighing Risks and Benefits in Medical Decisions

In medical practice, almost every treatment comes with some level of risk. Medications can have side effects, surgeries can lead to complications, and even routine procedures carry potential downsides. Balancing these risks with the potential benefits is one of the biggest challenges doctors face. This is where nonmaleficence intersects with beneficence—while the goal is to help the patient, doctors must make sure the benefits of an intervention justify any harm it might cause.

A common example of this balance is in prescribing medication. Painkillers like opioids can provide relief, but they also carry a risk of addiction and other complications. A doctor following medical ethics principles must decide whether the benefits of pain management outweigh the risks of long-term dependence. Similarly, chemotherapy can shrink tumors and extend life, but it also causes serious side effects, such as nausea, fatigue, and immune suppression. Physicians must assess whether the overall impact will improve the patient’s condition or lead to further suffering.

In some cases, even a necessary treatment can cause harm, but doctors must find ways to reduce it. For example, a patient requiring life-saving surgery may face a high risk of complications. While the surgery itself is needed, physicians can apply the principle of nonmaleficence by taking precautions—like optimizing preoperative care, using minimally invasive techniques, and providing post-surgical pain management.

Doctors must also consider psychological harm. Breaking bad news, discussing terminal diagnoses, or delivering treatment options with significant risks can have an emotional impact. While honesty and informed consent are crucial, physicians must communicate in a way that minimizes unnecessary distress. Patients have the right to understand their condition, but the way that information is delivered can influence their well-being.

2.3 Nonmaleficence in End-of-Life Care

End-of-life care presents some of the most difficult ethical dilemmas related to nonmaleficence. Patients with terminal illnesses often face decisions about whether to continue aggressive treatment or transition to palliative care. In these cases, the principle of nonmaleficence plays a central role in determining whether medical interventions will improve quality of life or merely prolong suffering.

Withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment is a difficult but necessary discussion in many end-of-life situations. Some patients with advanced illnesses may require ventilators, dialysis, or feeding tubes to stay alive, but these interventions may not provide meaningful recovery. If continued treatment leads to more pain and distress without significant benefit, following medical ethics principles may mean discontinuing those interventions. Physicians work with patients and families to navigate these decisions, ensuring they align with the patient’s wishes and best interests.

Pain management is another key aspect of nonmaleficence in end-of-life care. Many terminally ill patients experience severe pain, and strong medications, including opioids, are often required. While high doses of these drugs can sometimes shorten life expectancy, the intent is to relieve suffering, not hasten death. This ethical distinction, known as the doctrine of double effect, allows physicians to provide comfort while upholding the principle of nonmaleficence.

Nonmaleficence also applies when discussing do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and advance directives. Some patients choose to avoid aggressive interventions like CPR if their prognosis is poor. In these cases, respecting their wishes aligns with both autonomy and nonmaleficence, as forcing unwanted treatment can cause unnecessary harm. Physicians must guide patients and families through these choices while ensuring that medical decisions prioritize comfort and dignity.

Decisions surrounding euthanasia and physician-assisted dying further complicate the discussion of nonmaleficence. In some regions, these practices are legal, but they raise ethical questions about whether actively ending life violates the duty to do no harm. While laws vary, the ethical debate continues around balancing compassion, patient autonomy, and the fundamental obligation to minimize harm.

Nonmaleficence remains a guiding force in medical ethics, particularly in complex cases where the line between benefit and harm isn’t always clear. Whether making treatment decisions, managing risks, or supporting patients at the end of life, physicians must continuously assess the impact of their actions, ensuring that their care minimizes harm while respecting patient needs and values.

3. Autonomy

3.1 The Right to Self-Determination

Autonomy is one of the core medical ethics principles, emphasizing that patients have the right to make decisions about their own healthcare. It is based on the idea that individuals are capable of rational thought and should be able to decide what happens to their bodies. This principle means that a doctor cannot impose treatments or make choices on behalf of a patient without their consent, even if the physician believes it would lead to a better outcome.

The concept of autonomy has legal and ethical backing. Courts have ruled that competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment, even if doing so results in their death. This means a patient can reject life-saving interventions, decline medications, or choose an alternative approach to care. While physicians provide recommendations, the final decision rests with the patient.

However, autonomy isn’t absolute. There are cases where a patient’s decision might cause harm to others, such as in the refusal of vaccines during an outbreak. There are also limits when patients lack decision-making capacity, requiring doctors to determine how best to respect their rights while ensuring their well-being. Even when autonomy is upheld, physicians must ensure that patients have all the information needed to make informed choices.

3.2 Informed Consent and Decision-Making Capacity

Informed consent is a direct application of autonomy in medical practice. It requires that patients receive all relevant details about a treatment, including its risks, benefits, and alternatives, before agreeing to proceed. Without this process, any medical intervention could be considered unethical or even unlawful.

For consent to be valid, a patient must be competent to make the decision, understand the provided information, and do so voluntarily. Decision-making capacity is essential in ensuring that autonomy is exercised appropriately. If a patient lacks this capacity due to illness, injury, or cognitive impairment, their ability to provide informed consent is questioned.

Determining whether a patient has the ability to make decisions involves assessing their ability to understand their condition, consider the consequences of different options, and communicate their choice. Temporary conditions such as high fever, intoxication, or extreme pain can also impair decision-making. In such cases, doctors must decide whether to delay treatment until the patient recovers capacity or involve a legally authorized surrogate.

Some situations make the issue of informed consent even more complicated. Patients may request treatments that have little to no medical benefit, or they may refuse care based on personal beliefs. Physicians must respect these decisions while ensuring patients fully understand the implications. Conversations around treatment options should be clear and free of coercion, so patients can make choices based on their values and understanding of the situation.

Advance directives and living wills also relate to autonomy, allowing individuals to state their medical preferences in advance. These legal documents guide doctors when patients become unable to express their wishes, ensuring that their autonomy is still respected even in critical situations.

3.3 When Autonomy Clashes with Other Ethical Principles

While autonomy is a key component of medical ethics principles, it doesn’t always align perfectly with beneficence, nonmaleficence, or justice. Conflicts arise when a patient’s right to choose contradicts what a physician believes is best or when their decision could have consequences for others.

A common conflict is between autonomy and beneficence. A patient may refuse a treatment that could improve or save their life. For example, a cancer patient might decline chemotherapy because of its side effects, even if it increases survival chances. While a doctor may strongly believe that treatment is necessary, they cannot force it upon the patient. The ethical challenge is balancing respect for personal choice while ensuring patients fully understand the potential outcomes.

Another frequent issue is autonomy versus nonmaleficence. Patients sometimes request treatments that could cause more harm than good. A physician may feel an obligation to avoid harm by refusing to provide a procedure they believe is unnecessary or dangerous. An example is the use of antibiotics for viral infections, which won’t provide benefits and could contribute to antibiotic resistance. While the patient has the right to request treatment, the doctor has a duty to prevent harm, even if it means denying a request.

Justice, which focuses on fairness in healthcare, also complicates autonomy. A person’s right to choose their treatment may be limited by available resources. In a public health crisis, patients might not be able to access the care they want due to limited hospital space or medical supplies. The allocation of ventilators during a pandemic is an example of this conflict. While each patient has the right to seek life-saving treatment, resources must be distributed in a way that benefits the greatest number of people.

Autonomy also plays a role in cultural and religious beliefs. Some patients refuse blood transfusions due to their faith, even in life-threatening situations. Physicians must navigate these situations carefully, respecting beliefs while ensuring that decisions are made with full awareness of the risks involved. Ethical dilemmas like these highlight the complexity of autonomy in medical practice.

While autonomy is central to ethical decision-making, it must always be considered alongside other medical ethics principles. Doctors need to communicate clearly, respect patient choices, and recognize when exceptions are necessary to protect overall well-being. Balancing these factors requires careful judgment, as every case presents unique ethical challenges.

4. Justice

4.1 Fairness in Healthcare Distribution

Justice, as one of the core medical ethics principles, focuses on fairness in how healthcare resources and treatments are provided. It ensures that care is distributed equitably, without favoritism or discrimination. In theory, every patient should have equal access to necessary medical services. In practice, healthcare systems have limitations, and justice plays a role in determining how these resources are allocated.

Fairness in healthcare means ensuring that treatment decisions aren’t influenced by factors unrelated to medical need, such as socioeconomic status, race, or personal connections. Physicians and healthcare institutions must provide care in a way that does not advantage or disadvantage certain groups. This applies in routine patient care, as well as in broader public health efforts like vaccination programs, organ transplantation, and access to life-saving medications.

Health insurance, geographic location, and financial barriers can limit access to healthcare, creating disparities. Some patients may have the ability to pay for treatments that others cannot afford. Ethical questions arise when private healthcare options allow wealthier individuals to receive quicker or more advanced care, while others experience delays or denials due to cost restrictions. Physicians must navigate these challenges while ensuring they prioritize patient needs within the boundaries of what is available.

Another issue in fairness is how emerging treatments and experimental drugs are distributed. When a new drug is in limited supply, deciding who gets access first becomes a question of justice. Should priority go to those who are most likely to benefit, those who have no other treatment options, or those who were already enrolled in clinical trials? These decisions require a structured, ethical approach to ensure fairness and transparency.

4.2 Ethical Considerations in Resource Allocation

Limited medical resources create ethical dilemmas, particularly in situations where demand exceeds supply. Medical ethics principles guide decision-making in these cases, requiring a balance between individual needs and the broader public good. Decisions about resource allocation often come into focus during public health crises, such as pandemics or natural disasters, when hospitals may not have enough equipment, beds, or staff to care for everyone.

One example of this issue is the allocation of intensive care unit (ICU) beds and ventilators during a respiratory disease outbreak. If two critically ill patients require a ventilator but only one is available, who should receive it? Some frameworks prioritize those with the highest likelihood of survival, while others focus on maximizing life-years saved. Other models consider a first-come, first-served approach, but this can disadvantage those with limited healthcare access.

Organ transplantation is another area where resource allocation is a central ethical concern. Organs are scarce, and transplant lists use criteria like medical urgency, compatibility, and likelihood of success to determine who receives a donation. Justice ensures that these decisions are based on fair and consistent guidelines rather than arbitrary factors.

Pharmaceutical shortages also highlight ethical concerns in distribution. When life-saving medications are in short supply, hospitals and governments must decide who receives them first. Cancer drugs, antibiotics, and vaccines have all faced supply constraints at various times, requiring careful planning to prevent unethical disparities in access.

Ethical allocation of resources extends beyond individual patient care. Research funding, government health budgets, and policy decisions influence the overall distribution of medical services. Justice demands that these resources be allocated based on public health needs rather than political or economic pressures. Preventive care, for example, often competes with acute treatment for funding. While treating severe illnesses is essential, investing in prevention can reduce long-term healthcare costs and improve overall health outcomes.

4.3 Addressing Bias and Inequality in Medical Practice

Healthcare disparities exist in many parts of the world, and justice in medicine requires recognizing and addressing these inequalities. Bias—whether conscious or unconscious—can affect clinical decision-making, leading to differences in diagnosis, treatment, and overall patient outcomes. Ethical medical practice demands that physicians work to eliminate these biases to provide equal care for all patients.

Race, gender, age, and socioeconomic status have all been shown to impact how patients receive care. Studies have found that some racial and ethnic groups receive less pain management, fewer referrals for specialized treatment, and different standards of care compared to others. These discrepancies violate the principle of justice, as they create unequal treatment based on factors unrelated to medical need.

Gender disparities are also present in medicine. Women have historically been underrepresented in clinical research, leading to gaps in understanding how diseases present in different populations. Heart disease, for example, often manifests differently in women than in men, but much of the existing medical literature is based on male patients. This affects diagnosis and treatment, creating an ethical challenge in ensuring all patients receive appropriate care.

Economic inequality is another factor that affects justice in medical practice. Patients from lower-income backgrounds may struggle to afford medications, follow-up care, or preventive screenings. While physicians cannot control healthcare costs, they can advocate for policies that improve access and ensure that financial barriers do not prevent necessary medical treatment. Many hospitals have programs that provide financial assistance, and physicians play a role in guiding patients toward these resources.

Justice in medical ethics also involves ensuring cultural competence in healthcare. Different communities have varying beliefs about medicine, and a lack of understanding can lead to miscommunication and mistrust. Physicians who acknowledge and respect cultural differences can build stronger relationships with patients, ensuring they receive care that aligns with their values and needs.

Efforts to reduce healthcare disparities go beyond individual physicians. Medical institutions, governments, and advocacy groups work to create policies that address systemic inequalities. Whether through expanding healthcare coverage, increasing diversity in medical research, or improving access to care in underserved areas, promoting justice in healthcare requires collective action.

Justice remains one of the most debated medical ethics principles, as it involves balancing individual rights with broader societal needs. Ensuring fairness in healthcare requires constant evaluation of policies, practices, and individual decision-making to provide ethical, equitable care for all patients.

Click to see hundreds of consultants who can mentor you:

5. Conflicts Between Ethical Principles

5.1 Beneficence vs. Autonomy

Conflicts between medical ethics principles happen frequently in healthcare, and one of the most common is the tension between beneficence and autonomy. Beneficence emphasizes acting in the patient’s best interest, while autonomy upholds a patient’s right to make their own medical decisions. These two principles can clash when a patient refuses a treatment that a physician believes is necessary.

A classic example is a cancer patient declining chemotherapy despite a high chance of remission. The physician, guided by beneficence, may see the treatment as the best option to extend the patient’s life and improve their condition. However, the patient, exercising autonomy, might reject the treatment due to the side effects or personal beliefs. In this case, even if the refusal leads to a worse outcome, the physician must respect the patient’s choice.

Another area where these principles collide is in mental health care. Patients experiencing psychiatric conditions may refuse treatment, even when their illness affects their ability to make rational decisions. If a patient with severe depression refuses medication or hospitalization, physicians must determine whether respecting autonomy puts the patient at risk. If a patient is deemed to lack decision-making capacity, beneficence may override autonomy, and involuntary treatment may be considered.

Pediatric care also presents challenges. Parents make medical decisions for their children, but what happens when a parent’s choice contradicts medical advice? If a child has a life-threatening infection and the parents refuse antibiotics due to personal or religious beliefs, physicians must weigh beneficence against parental autonomy. In extreme cases, courts may intervene to protect the child’s well-being, overriding parental authority.

Balancing these ethical conflicts requires clear communication and shared decision-making. Physicians must ensure that patients fully understand their options while recognizing that autonomy means allowing people to make choices—even ones that go against medical advice.

5.2 Justice vs. Resource Limitations

Justice in medicine focuses on fairness, but it often clashes with the reality of limited healthcare resources. Hospitals, clinics, and governments must decide how to distribute treatments, equipment, and medical personnel in a way that is ethical and equitable. When resources are scarce, decisions must be made about who receives care and who does not, creating ethical dilemmas.

A clear example is organ transplantation. There are more patients in need of transplants than there are available organs. Ethical frameworks prioritize distribution based on factors like medical urgency, compatibility, and likelihood of survival. Some argue that younger patients should be prioritized since they have more years ahead of them, while others emphasize a first-come, first-served approach. These decisions are difficult because they directly affect who lives and who continues to wait.

During public health emergencies, such as pandemics, hospitals may face shortages of ventilators, ICU beds, or antiviral medications. In these situations, medical ethics principles guide triage protocols, often favoring those with the highest survival chances. This raises questions of fairness—should all patients have an equal chance, or should those most likely to recover be prioritized?

Healthcare systems must also address disparities in access to care. Some communities, particularly in low-income or rural areas, have fewer hospitals and specialists, limiting access to necessary treatments. Physicians working in these areas must balance justice with practicality, sometimes making decisions based on what is available rather than what is ideal.

Financial limitations also play a role in resource distribution. Expensive treatments and medications are not always covered by insurance, leaving some patients unable to afford necessary care. Ethical questions arise when physicians must decide whether to recommend a costly treatment that a patient cannot realistically access.

Justice requires decision-makers to use fair and consistent criteria when allocating resources. While limitations cannot always be avoided, transparency and ethical reasoning help ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of both individuals and the broader community.

5.3 Navigating Ethical Gray Areas in Clinical Practice

Not all ethical dilemmas fit neatly into predefined categories. Many real-world cases exist in gray areas where multiple medical ethics principles are in conflict, and the right course of action isn’t immediately clear. Physicians must use judgment, experience, and ethical reasoning to determine the best approach.

End-of-life care is one of the most complex ethical areas. A terminally ill patient may wish to discontinue life-sustaining treatment, even if doing so results in death. Beneficence suggests that prolonging life is in the patient’s best interest, but autonomy supports the right to refuse treatment. In some cases, patients and families disagree, further complicating the situation. These cases require sensitive communication and ethical reasoning to respect patient wishes while providing appropriate medical care.

Medical errors also present ethical challenges. If a physician makes a mistake that does not cause harm, should they still inform the patient? Transparency and honesty are important, but disclosing minor errors could create unnecessary anxiety. However, if an error does lead to harm, nonmaleficence requires the physician to take responsibility and work to correct the mistake.

Another ethical gray area is the use of experimental treatments. When standard therapies fail, patients may request access to experimental drugs that have not been fully tested. While beneficence supports offering hope, nonmaleficence warns against exposing patients to unknown risks. Ethical guidelines exist for compassionate use, but each case must be evaluated individually.

Conflicts also arise when treating patients with different cultural or religious beliefs. Some may refuse blood transfusions, vaccines, or life-saving interventions based on personal beliefs. Physicians must navigate these situations by respecting autonomy while ensuring that decisions are well-informed and not influenced by misinformation.

Ethical dilemmas will always be part of medical practice. Physicians must be prepared to analyze situations where principles compete, using critical thinking and ethical guidelines to guide their decisions. Open discussions, professional consultations, and ethics committees can help navigate these complex issues, ensuring that patient care remains ethical, fair, and patient-centered.

Conclusion

Medical ethics plays a central role in patient care, guiding physicians through difficult decisions where multiple values come into conflict. The medical ethics principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice provide a foundation for ethical reasoning, but real-world situations are rarely straightforward. Physicians must balance doing what is best for patients while respecting their right to make personal decisions. They must also ensure fairness in distributing limited healthcare resources while minimizing harm in treatments and interventions.

Ethical dilemmas arise in everyday medical practice. A patient refusing life-saving treatment challenges the balance between beneficence and autonomy. Limited hospital resources force difficult choices about who receives care first. Cultural beliefs and personal values add another layer of complexity to discussions around informed consent, truth-telling, and end-of-life decisions. Each case requires careful evaluation, open communication, and an understanding of ethical frameworks.

While medical ethics principles provide structure, ethical decision-making is rarely black and white. Physicians must rely on clinical judgment, professional experience, and ongoing dialogue with patients and colleagues to navigate ethical challenges. Ethical practice is not about following rigid rules—it is about thinking critically, acting with integrity, and ensuring that medical care remains patient-centered, fair, and responsible.

Check out what students are saying about our consultants: