Historical Figures Paper

Historical Figures Paper

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Tittle

Professor’s Name


The First Principle of the APA Ethics Code 

The first principle of the APA ethics code says that psychologists ought to make every effort to safeguard the rights and wellbeing of persons with whom they labor professionally. Beneficence and Non-maleficence is the first principle from the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Beneficence entails balancing the safeties of treatment against the threats and charges involved, while non-maleficence signifies evading the interconnection of harm.

The principle of non-maleficence suggests that there is an onus not to impose pain on others. Beneficence is well-defined as charity and kindness, which needs to act on the side of the nurse to help others. An instance of a nurse showing this moral principle is by holding the hand of a patient who is dying. Beneficence is a moral principle that talks about the notion that a nurse’s doings ought to support well. Doing well is supposed to as doing something that is good to the patient (Knapp et al., 2020). This code functions as a responsibility for nurses to safeguard their patients from mischief by preventing and removing the bad state of affairs and promoting better ones.

The beneficence and the non-maleficence principle of the APA common principles direct psychologists to carry out their job that is helpful to others hitherto does not offend or upset anyone in the procedure of doing that job (Chenneville & Gabbidon, 2020). They are to continue being mindful of their proficient impact and the possible penalties therein on a person and groups who look for guidance with the psychologist, particularly with respect to averting abuse and abuse, while as well as keeping the mindfulness of in what manner the psychologists have physical and mental health and may impact their job. Among the study and proficient relations, psychologists ought to safeguard the well-being and realities of participants and patients.

Beneficent activities and motives have conventionally occupied a dominant place in ethics. General examples nowadays are established in communal support of health-related research, social welfare programs, programs to benefit children and the incompetent, scholarships for needy and meritorious students, philanthropy, policies to improve the welfare of animals, preferential hiring, disaster relief, and admission policies.

The principle of it is an ethical obligation to act for the help of others. The two types of beneficent include There are. 2 aspects of beneficence: providing benefits and balancing benefits and risk. The standard of beneficence backs up the following obligations or moral rules: Prevent harm from occurring to others, protect and defend the rights of others, remove conditions that will cause harm, and rescue persons in danger.

The principle of non-maleficence contemplates that there is a duty not to impose mischief or harm on others. It is nearly related to the maxim primum non-nocere (first do not do harm). The principle of non-maleficence guides the following rules: do not incapacitate, do not kill, Do not cause pain or suffering, and do not cause offense. When a psychologist behaves unethical, it happens in a way that he is insensitive, irresponsible, unaware or misinformed, exploitive, Therapists without Boundaries, and one who is vengeful. The Ethics Code is projected to offer direction for psychologists and morals of proficient demeanor that can be functional by the APA and by other bodies that decide to adopt them. 


Chenneville, T., & Gabbidon, K. (2020). Application of the APA ethics code for psychologists working in integrated care settings: Potential conflicts and resolutions. Ethics & Behavior, 30(4), 264-274.


Childress-Beatty, L., & Haynes, J. P. (2020). A visionary and transformational APA Ethics Code: comment on O’Donohue (2019). Ethics & Behavior, 30(4), 294-298.


Knapp, S., Gottlieb, M. C., & Handelsman, M. M. (2020). The Ethics Code Does Not Equal Ethics: A Response to O’Donohue. Ethics & Behavior, 30(4), 303-309.