Final answer:
Administering morphine to a patient with severe pain despite potential respiratory risk is a balance of nonmaleficence and beneficence. Nonmaleficence requires avoiding harm, whereas beneficence focuses on providing benefits such as pain relief. The patient's autonomy and utilitarian perspectives are also important factors in the decision-making process.
Step-by-step explanation:
The situation of administering morphine to a patient with end-stage ovarian cancer, who is complaining of severe pain but where there is a concern about decreasing respiratory effort, represents the ethical principle of nonmaleficence. This principle states that healthcare providers should act in ways that do not cause harm to patients, including avoiding unnecessary harm and considering the potential harms when providing treatment. When faced with such a situation, healthcare professionals must balance the principle of nonmaleficence with the principle of beneficence, which dictates that actions should be taken to benefit the patient, in this case providing relief from severe pain.
In determining the correct course of action, the healthcare provider must weigh the risks and benefits of the morphine administration. This involves considering the principle of autonomy, which upholds a patient's right to make decisions about their own healthcare, and ensuring that the patient's wishes are respected. Additionally, the utilitarian perspective might be considered, which involves evaluating the greatest happiness or relief of suffering for the patient.