Maleficence in healthcare refers to any intentional and unintentional harm caused by healthcare providers or health systems. It is usually discussed in contrast to nonmaleficence, the avoidance of causing harm, one of the pillars of the Four Principles approach to medical ethics proposed by Beauchamp and Childress in the 1970s.
Intentional maleficence manifests as deliberate actions that knowingly harm patients. Thankfully, it is rare, and acts of intentional hurt, deception, exploitation, or fraud are universally frowned upon by health care providers, professional organizations, institutions, and society at large. Any intentional infliction of harm obviously betrays patient trust, which is the foundation of all physician-patient relationships.
Some of the most notorious examples of intentional maleficence stem from authoritarian regimes or times of military conflict. Acts ascribed to Nazi healthcare providers before and during World War II are among those most frequently cited. Forced euthanasia, the deliberate killing of populations considered unworthy of life, forced sterilization programs, and harmful experimentation in the name of science (such as cold-water immersion, intentional injection, or exposure to knowingly toxic substances, etc.) illustrate how Nazi doctors, midwives, nurses, and technicians intentionally murdered, tortured, or abused patients and other victims of the repressive Nazi regime.
Other flagrant examples of intentional maleficence occurred during Argentina’s brutal military dictatorship (1976-1983). During this time, some health care providers were complicit in the torture or murder of innocent victims detained by state agents. This included documenting false causes of death (such as falls from high places), administering drugs to torture victims, and falsifying records used to facilitate unlawful adoptions of disappeared children.
Equally disturbing are discoveries made during and after the Second Gulf War (2003-2011). Health care providers pressured by Saddam Hussein’s oppressive Ba’ath regime allegedly falsified death certificates and misrepresented legal reports of torture. Also troubling are reports that psychologists and United States military personnel failed to report human rights abuses of detainees undergoing interrogations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
Of course, cases of intentional maleficence are not limited to health care delivery under authoritarian or military regimes. Other examples include unethical human experimentation, the deliberate withholding of treatment (the 40-year Untreated Syphilis Study at Tuskegee comes to mind), performing unnecessary procedures regardless of context, economic misconduct and fraudulent practices to satisfy scientific, personal, or financial ambitions, and ideologically-driven care that disregards patient welfare in favor of personal gain or adherence to doctrinal beliefs and political policies.
*
While intentional maleficence is a clear violation of professional ethics and fiduciary duty, the picture is less clear in cases of unintentional maleficence, which is both more prevalent and ethically complex. Unintentional maleficence usually stems from cognitive and experiential bias, system pressures, fragmented care, miscommunication, a propensity to practice medicine defensively, clinical uncertainty, or unwarranted therapeutic zeal. It can also be an unfortunate and even deadly result of medical error, negligence or professional incompetence.
Unintentional maleficence often occurs despite well-intentioned practices. In these cases, ethical analysis is challenging because health care providers usually act in the pursuit of beneficence. A prime example is any medical intervention for which possibilities for an undesired outcome are underestimated or not revealed. High-risk treatments, polypharmacy in vulnerable populations, and technically correct but ethically damaging decisions are other instances where harm may occur despite a health care provider’s intention to help. A well-known illustration is “the double effect,” in which a medical intervention has two causally independent outcomes: one that is ethically and legally acceptable, such as the relief of pain or anxiety, and another that is not, such as a patient’s death from oversedation.
Maleficence in healthcare includes both intentional and unintentional harm caused by clinicians or systems, raising complex ethical challenges that go beyond nonmaleficence. In my opinion, more conversations about these topics are warranted within the Interventional Pulmonology community. This is because maleficence encompasses both intentional and unintentional harms arising from clinical actions, flawed decision-making, or omission. These may result in ethical violations, poor patient outcomes, and ideological harm. Health care providers, institutions, and professional societies are morally accountable to design systems that minimize foreseeable harm and respond proactively to sentinel events. They should create and support conditions that prioritize patient safety, transparency, overall well-being, and ethical awareness over convenience, personal gain, or professional protectionism.
- Beauchamp TL and Childress JF (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed). Oxford University Press.
- Beecher HK. Ethics and Clinical Research. N Engl J Med 1966;274:1354-1360.
- Weindling PJ (2004). Nazi Medicine and Nuremberg Trials. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Reis C, Ahmed AT, Amowitz LL, et al. Physician Participation in Human Rights Abuses in Southern Iraq. JAMA. 2004;291(12):1480–1486. doi:10.1001/jama.291.12.1480.
- Scheper-Hughes, N. The Ghosts of Montes de Oca: Buried Subtext of Argentina’s Dirty War.” The Americas2015;72(2):187-220. Project MUSE, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/579738.
- Newly unredacted report confirms psychologists supported illegal interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan. ACLU Release, April 30, 2008. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/newly-unredacted-report-confirms-psychologists-supported-illegal-interrogations-iraq.