What are the six ethical frameworks?

Written by Jennifer Ware | Jan 29, 2019 2:43 PM

Business ethics should be at the forefront of every organization’s culture. Unethical behavior can be costly from both a legal and public relations standpoint. Learn about the six frameworks for ethical decision making in our latest infographic.

Skye Learning Business Ethics Course

  1. Mackie P, Sim F: The ethics of public health decision making. Public Health. 2004, 118: 311-312. 10.1016/j.puhe.2004.05.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Thomas JC, Sage M, Dillenberg J, Guillory JV: A code of ethics for public health. American Journl of Public Health. 2002, 92 (7): 1057-1059. 10.2105/AJPH.92.7.1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sindall C: Does health promotion need a code of ethics?. Health Promotion International. 2002, 17 (3): 201-203. 10.1093/heapro/17.3.201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Acheson R: Public health in England: the report of the committee of the enquiry into the future development of the public health function. 1988, HMSO. London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kass NE: An ethics framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2001, 91 (11): 1776-1782. 10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1776.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Dawson A, Verweij M: Ethics, prevention and public health. 2007, Oxford: Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dawson A: Theory and practice in public health ethics: a complex relationship. Public Health Ethics and Practice. Edited by: Peckham S, Hann A. 2009, Bristol: Policy Press, 191-209.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Childress JF, Faden RR, Gaare RD, Gostin LO, Kahn J, Bonnie RJ, Kass NE, Mastroianni AC, Moreno JD, Nieburg P: Public health ethics: mapping the terrain. J Law Med Ethics. 2002, 30 (2): 170-178. 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2002.tb00384.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Public Health Leadership Society: Principles of the ethical practice of public health. 2.2 edition. USA. 2002, 11-

    Google Scholar 

  10. Public policies law and bioethics: a framework for producing public health policy across the European Union. 2006, European Public Health Ethics Network

  11. Lord Krebs K, Unwin J, et al: Public health: ethical issues. 2007, London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tannahill A: Beyond evidence--to ethics: a decision-making framework for health promotion, public health and health improvement. Health Promot Int. 2008, 23 (4): 380-390. 10.1093/heapro/dan032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pubmed. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/]

  14. Wilson JMG, Jungner G: Principles and practice of screening for disease. 1968, Geneva: World Health Organization, 34:

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fox BJ: Framing tobacco control efforts within an ethical context. Tob Control. 2005, 14 (Suppl 2): ii38-44. 10.1136/tc.2004.008300.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Upshur REG: Principles for the justification of public health intervention. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 2002, 93 (2): 101-103.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Harris J, Bortolotti L, Irving L: An ethical framework for stem cell research in the European Union. Health Care Anal. 2005, 13 (3): 157-162. 10.1007/s10728-005-6439-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Thompson AK, Faith K, Gibson JL, Upshur REG: Pandemic influenza preparedness: an ethical framework to guide decision-making. BMC Medical Ethics. 2006, 7 (12):

  19. Daniels N: Accountablity for reasonableness. BMJ. 2009, 321: 1300-1301. 10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Daniels N, Teagarden JR, Sabin JE: An ethical template for pharmacy benefits. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003, 22 (1): 125-137. 10.1377/hlthaff.22.1.125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gostin LO: Influenza pandemic preparedness: legal and ethical dimensions. Hastings Cent Rep. 2004, 34 (5): 10-11. 10.2307/3527583.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kass NE: An ethics framework for public health and avian influenza pandemic preparedness. Yale J Biol Med. 2005, 78 (5): 239-254.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Stefanak M, Frisch L, Palmer-Fernandez G: An organizational code of public health ethics: practical applications and benefits. Public Health Reports. 2007, 122: 548-551.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/638/prepub


Page 2

Main ethical values Well-being Privacy and confidentiality Liberty and self-determination Distributive justice Procedural justice

These values have been extracted from the description of the considerations of questions 3, 5 and 6.

Well-being Utility Distributive justice and fairness Procedural justice and participation Liberty and autonomy Privacy and confidentiality Trustworthiness Transparency and openness

These values have been extracted from the nine moral considerations that are provided in appendix 2.

Well-being Individual rights Participation Empowerment Equality Evidence based Transparency Effectiveness Consent Swiftness Cultural value pluralism Respect for environment Confidentiality and privacy Professionalism Trustworthiness

These values have been extracted from the twelve principles that are provided in appendix 2.

Well-being Empowerment Individual rights Liberty and autonomy Personal responsibility and duties Communitarianism Participation Transparency Accountability Trust Confidentiality and privacy Swiftness

These values have been extracted from the eleven recommendations that are provided in appendix 2.

Well-being Care of the vulnerable Empowerment Autonomy Fairness and equality Liberty and self determination Openness Privacy

These values have been extracted from the ten principles that are provided in appendix 2.

Well-being Equity Respect Empowerment Sustainability Social responsibility Participation Openness Accountability

These values have been extracted from the ten ethical principles that are provided in appendix 2.

Criteria for dealing with ethical conflict -The greater the burden, the greater must be the expected public health benefit. -The more uneven the benefits and burdens are divided between groups, the greater must be the expected benefit. -Coercive programs should be kept to a minimum, should never be implemented when a less restrictive program would achieve comparable goals, and should be implemented only in the face of a clear public health need and good data demonstrating effectiveness.

Disagreements about balancing burdens and benefits should be solved through a system of fair procedures that require a democratic process, including public hearings to consider minority views.

Within particular circumstances promoting the goals of public health (producing benefits, preventing harms and producing utility) may override other moral considerations (such as individual liberty or justice), provided that the following justificatory conditions are met: -Effectiveness -Proportionality -Necessity -Least infringement -Public justification

Dealing with conflicts in a fair and trustworthy manner requires a process of public accountability. This involves soliciting input from the relevant publics during the formulation of public health policies as well as justifying to the relevant publics what is being undertaken after decisions have been made.

Not specified Not specified -The overall aim should be to achieve the desired health outcomes while minimising restrictions on people's freedom. -The more intrusive a program is, the more benefits its must create. -Ideally the principles should not be infringed, and when infringement is deemed necessary sound justification is required.

-The classical harm principle, care of the vulnerable, autonomy and consent are of special importance, either because infringing them can have significant consequences, or because they are of particular relevance to public health interventions.

Documenting judgements can be of value both in consultation and in continuing constructive dialogue after decisions have been made. In case of disagreement, those who disagree may understand what decisions were based on and can argue for a different decision based on the same principles.