Final answer:
The principle of beneficence, stating the need to do good for patients, justifies the risk of harm in administering larger morphine doses to a terminally ill, pain-ridden patient, despite the potential respiratory inhibition. This principle often works hand in hand with nonmaleficence, which seeks to avoid harm, and such situations also necessitate a close evaluation of ethical considerations in medicine.
Step-by-step explanation:
The principle that would justify the risk of harm in this scenario of a terminally ill patient experiencing great pain that can be relieved by larger doses of morphine, even though it also inhibits respiration, is the principle of beneficence. This principle prompts healthcare providers to do good for their patients and act in their best interest. In this situation, the perceived 'good' is to relieve the patient's severe pain, which necessitates the administration of larger doses of morphine.
The principle of beneficence often goes hand in hand with the principle of nonmaleficence, which advocates avoiding harm to patients. However, in certain circumstances, such as in palliative care, there may be a need to balance the potential benefits and harms, as is the case with the possible inhibition of respiration with increased morphine doses.
Euthanasia, whether passive or active, relies heavily on these ethical principles. Ethical considerations include the patient's quality of life, the intent to end suffering, and the potential impact on the wider community and healthcare practice. Balancing these considerations against potential harms is an essential aspect of ethical decision-making in medicine.
Learn more about Principle of Beneficence