Editing Bioethics (section)

== Principles ==
[[File:Hippocrate refusant les présents d'Artaxerxès (original).JPG|thumb|''Hippocrates Refusing the Gifts of Artaxerxes'' by [[Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson]]]]
One of the first areas addressed by modern bioethicists was human experimentation. According to the [[Declaration of Helsinki]] (1964) published by the [[World Medical Association]], the essential principles in medical research involving human subjects are autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. 
The autonomy of individuals to make decisions while assuming responsibility for them and respecting the autonomy of others ought to be respected. For people unable to exercise their autonomy, special measures ought to be taken to protect their rights and interests.

In US, the [[National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research]] was initially established in 1974 to identify the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects.  However, the fundamental principles announced in the [[Belmont Report]] (1979)—namely, [[respect for persons]], [[beneficence (ethics)|beneficence]] and [[justice]]—have influenced the thinking of bioethicists across a wide range of issues.  Others have added non-maleficence, [[human dignity]], and the sanctity of life to this list of cardinal values. 
Overall, the Belmont Report has guided lookup in a course centered on defending prone topics as properly as pushing for transparency between the researcher and the subject. Research has flourished within the past 40 years and due to the advance in technology, it is thought that human subjects have outgrown the Belmont Report, and the need for revision is desired.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Friesen P, Kearns L, Redman B, Caplan AL | title = Rethinking the Belmont Report? | journal = The American Journal of Bioethics | volume = 17 | issue = 7 | pages = 15–21 | date = July 2017 | pmid = 28661753 | doi = 10.1080/15265161.2017.1329482 | s2cid = 5659722 }}</ref>

Another essential precept of bioethics is its placement of cost on dialogue and presentation. Numerous dialogue based bioethics organizations exist in universities throughout the United States to champion precisely such goals. Examples include the Ohio State Bioethics Society<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thebioethicssociety.org.ohio-state.edu/ |title=The Bioethics Society of Ohio State |publisher=Thebioethicssociety.org.ohio-state.edu |access-date=17 September 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130613041230/http://thebioethicssociety.org.ohio-state.edu/ |archive-date=13 June 2013 }}</ref> and the Bioethics Society of Cornell.<ref>{{cite web|title=Bioethics Society of Cornell|url=http://www.rso.cornell.edu/bsc/about.htm|publisher=Cornell University|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120617163848/http://www.rso.cornell.edu/bsc/about.htm|archive-date=17 June 2012}}</ref> Professional level versions of these organizations also exist.

Many bioethicists, in particular scientific scholars, accord the easiest precedence to autonomy. They trust that every affected person ought to decide which direction of motion they think about most in line with their beliefs. In other words, the patient should always have the freedom to choose their own treatment.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Entwistle VA, Carter SM, Cribb A, McCaffery K | title = Supporting patient autonomy: the importance of clinician-patient relationships | journal = Journal of General Internal Medicine | volume = 25 | issue = 7 | pages = 741–745 | date = July 2010 | pmid = 20213206 | pmc = 2881979 | doi = 10.1007/s11606-010-1292-2 | url = https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/11467/1/Supporting%20Patient%20Autonomy.pdf }}</ref>