Synonyms for harm or Related words with harm

injure              harming              danger              damages              discomfort              harmful              damage              endanger              hurt              detriment              threaten              injurious              endangering              harms              irritate              hurting              detrimental              injuring              dangers              deleterious              injury              irritation              compromise              fear              hazards              risking              damaging              dangerous              injuries              trauma              nuisance              jeopardize              disturb              hazard              impair              electrocution              destroy              inconvenience              neglect              threatening              risks              contaminate              irritating              adverse              impacts              incapacitate              distractions              diminish              unintended              harmed             

Examples of "harm"
The physical harm for twenty drugs was compared in an article in the Lancet (see diagram, above right). Physical harm was assigned a value from 0 to 3 for acute harm, chronic harm and intravenous harm. Shown is the mean physical harm. Not shown, but also evaluated, was the social harm.
(3) Proportionality between harm inflicted and harm avoided
Mill's harm principle is distinct from the offence principle. The basis of comparison is that, in some cases, psychological or social harm may be comparable to physical harm. The difference is based on the assumption that offence may cause discomfort, but does not necessarily cause harm. Offence meets the harm principle only if it is a wrong and also causes harm.
The first category can be further divided into three parameters of harm: acute physical harm, chronic physical harm, and intravenous harm. Acute harm is defined as the immediate effects associated with use of the given drug such as respiratory depression or myocardial infarction. Chronic harm is the consequence of continued and repeated use such as psychosis or lung disease. Lastly, intravenous harm refers to problems associated with the route of administration such as the spread of blood-borne pathogens like HIV.
Harm Reduction International, formerly known as International Harm Reduction Association, describes itself as a non-governmental organisation (NGO) in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, and works within harm reduction model in the field of harm reduction. In 1990, the first International Harm Reduction conference was held in Liverpool, England. As Liverpool was one of the first cities in Britain to instigate harm reduction policies, including opening one of the first government-funded needle exchanges under the 'Mersey Harm Reduction Model', the first International Harm Reduction Conference attracted a diverse range of harm reduction proponents, including academics, community workers, medical professionals and drug user activists.
"Self-Harm, Type I" is self-harm that has not resulted in injury.
However, the second maxim also opens the question of broader definitions of harm, up to and including harm to the society. The concept of harm is not limited to harm to another individual but can be harm to individuals plurally, without specific definition of those individuals.
Along similar lines as Mill, Jasper Doomen has argued that harm should be defined from the point of view of the individual citizen, not limiting harm to physical harm since nonphysical harm may also be involved; Feinberg's distinction between harm and offense is criticized as largely trivial.
If the likelihood of harm is relatively great, or the consequences serious, the possibility of harm will normally be reasonably foreseeable. Where the risk of harm is very small, or the harm not really serious, the reasonable person will not foresee the possibility of harm to others.
Unlawful wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm
"Self-Harm, Type II" is self-harm that has resulted in nonfatal injury.
The offence of attempting to cause bodily harm by wanton driving requires an intent to cause bodily harm.
A risk is the amount of harm that can be expected to occur during a given time period due to specific harm event (e.g., an accident). Statistically, the level of risk can be calculated as the product of the probability that harm occurs (e.g., that an accident happens) multiplied by the severity of that harm (i.e., the average amount of harm or more conservatively the maximum credible amount of harm). In practice, the amount of risk is usually categorized into a small number of levels because neither the probability nor harm severity can typically be estimated with accuracy and precision.
Counterproductive work behavior consists of behavior by employees that harm or intended to harm organizations and people in organizations.
Do not harm; Maximize probable benefits and minimize probable harms; Systematically assess both risk of harm and benefit.
3. The harm inflicted by the accused must be proportional to the harm avoided by the accused
According to Gert, harm (or "evil") is the central moral concept. Gert believes harm is what all rational creatures seek to avoid. He advances the following five-concept account of harm:
Perceptions on ethical behaviors vary depending upon geographical location, but ethical mandates are similar throughout the global community. Ethical standards are created to help practitioners, clients and the community avoid any possible harm or potential for harm. The standard ethical behaviors are centered on "doing no harm" and preventing harm.
If the harm could be avoided for "less" than the cost of the harm (B is less than PL), then the individual "should" take the precautions, rather than allowing the harm to occur. If precautions were not taken, we find that a legal duty of care has been breached, and we impose liability on the individual to pay for the harm.
In 1999, Bernard Harcourt wrote of the collapse of the harm principle: "Today the debate is characterized by a cacophony of competing harm arguments without any way to resolve them. There is no longer an argument within the structure of the debate to resolve the competing claims of harm. The original harm principle was never equipped determine the relative importance of harms."