Against the backdrop of health research regulation, this work engages in an
exploration of, and offers suggestions towards, how the decision maker can negotiate
the complex path of the difficult decision. It is argued that whilst rules and principles
are heavily relied upon in order to determine what to do, this reliance takes place
without adequate reflection of the different ways in which we seek to rely upon these
decision-making aids. What is most often the topic of analysis is the content which
rules and principles carry rather than consideration of the different functions which
each can fulfil or their (un)suitability in helping the decision maker.
Before we consider which principles or rules should inform our decisions, we need to
understand why we are using rules and principles. It follows that in order to
understand why we might use rules and principles, we must understand how rules
and principles can actually help us to reach decisions.
Through the development and refinement of a conceptual tree, this thesis sheds light
on the how and the why, in order to help decision makers determine the which.
Through the metaphor of a continuum, additional insights are offered on the
interrelationships that might co-exist between rules and principles.
This thesis begins by offering an analysis of pre-existing understandings of rules and
principles from legal theory and bioethics literatures. Additionally, I consider the
implications of principle-centric and rule-centric approaches to decision-making.
Through the overarching metaphor of a tree, a conceptualisation of best practice
instantiations, which represent a helpful middle-ground between rules and principles
is also offered. This can provide significant practical support to the decision maker in
navigating the path of the difficult decision
