Social values tend to reflect the morality of a society and this in turn manifests itself in Law as the law it regulates public order and human relationships There are several approaches in resolving ethical dilemmas Outcome based utilitarian approaches which decide whether actions are morally justifiable depending on the outcome rule based deontological approaches which states that certain moral rules must be followed regardless of circumstance character based virtue approaches which focuses on developing good character and principlism which focuses on the moral principles of autonomy beneficence no maleficence and justice in making ethical decisions In Re C Justice Thorpe stated that when considering capacity the question to be decided is whether it has been established that C s capacity is so reduced by his chronic mental illness that he does not sufficiently understand the nature purpose and effects of the proffered amputation The courts were presented with the ethical dilemma of having to determine if individuals diagnosed with mentally illnesses had the capacity to make medical decisions for themselves even if their decision may result in their death and whether the court's decision would be morally justifiable Although under principlism the idea of Non maleficence and Beneficence appear to support a utilitarian approach it can be argued that not acting is not causing harm and autonomy is more important than beneficence when the patient does not believe they will benefit from the action
