I am trying to understand the principles relevant to a particular bioethics scenario. For simplicity, I will describe it as follows:
A doctor refuses to treat a patient suffering from an illness because it is the result of cause x. The treatment can be described as follows:
It comes with some risks, but if untreated, the sequelae of the patient's illness are considered to be the greater harm.
Had the illness arisen from cause y, instead of cause x, the doctor would have no problem rendering treatment.
Although I don't consider it relevant, the doctor's refusal to is not a moral claim about the character of the patient. They simply do not recognise the x-induced illness as a pathology.
Additionally, as a consequence of the doctor's refusal to treat, the patient decides to self-medicate themselves, thereby subjecting themselves to additional harms. These harms are a secondary consequence arising from the refusal to treat the illness.
In this scenario, I can identify two relevant principles:
In refusing to render treatment, the principle of beneficence is being violated.
In refusing to grant the patient equal moral status, the principle of justice is being violated.
However, I was hoping for clarity regarding the additional harms that the patient is being unnecessarily subjected to. Is this also subsumed under beneficence, or would these secondary harms resulting from the doctor's inaction now be considered a violation of the principle of non-maleficence?
Any suggestions or references for further reading would be appreciated!