The antonym of this term, maleficence, describes a practice that opposes the welfare of any research participant.
According to the Belmont Report, researchers are required to follow two moral requirements in line with the principle of beneficence: do not harm and maximize possible benefits for research while minimizing any potential harm on others.
There are many different precedents in medicine and research for conducting a cost–benefit analysis and judging whether a certain action would be a sufficient practice of beneficence, and the extent to which treatments are acceptable or unacceptable is under debate.
These four concepts often arise in discussions about beneficence: Ordinary moral discourse and most philosophical systems state that a prohibition on doing harm to others as in #1 is more compelling than any duty to benefit others as in #2–4.
However, there is debate about the extent to which the interests of other parties, such as future patients and endangered persons, ought to be considered.