Why does the ethical doctrine of double effect presume “the bad consequence is not a means to the good consequence”?

Why does the ethical doctrine of double effect presume “the bad consequence is not a means to the good consequence”? The intent is to justify a decision as moral that has foreseeable bad consequences by intending only the good consequences. To do that one cannot intend the bad consequences.

What is a problem for the doctrine of double effect?

Problems with the doctrine of double effect

Intention is irrelevant: Some people take the view that it’s sloppy morality to decide the rightness or wrongness of an act by looking at the intention of the doctor.

Are the bad effects a means to the good effects?

The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect.

See also  In non-platonism, can undecidable statements have truth value?

What is the doctrine of double effect in ethics?

The principle of double effect is based on the idea that there is a morally relevant difference between an “intended” consequence of an act and one that is foreseen by the actor but not calculated to achieve their motive.

Is the doctrine of double effect irrelevant in end of life decision making?

Here, bringing about a satisfactory dying process for a patient is a good effect, not a bad one. What matters is that patients die without pain and suffering. This marks a crucial departure from the double-effect doctrine; if the patient’s death is not a bad effect then the doctrine is clearly irrelevant.

What is the most serious difficulty with the doctrine of double effect?

you are sometimes permitted to foreseeably cause certain harms, even though you may not intend to cause those harms. all of the above. What is the most serious difficulty with the Doctrine of Double Effect? this generates a contradiction, which refutes the claim that both rules are absolute.

What are the four condition of double effect?

(1) a non-contradiction between the means and the end or between the end and further ends, (2) the means do not undermine the end, (3) the means do not cause more harm than is necessary, (4) in the action as a whole the good outweighs the evil, (5) the means are in a necessary causal relation to the ends, and (6) the …

What is the doctrine of double effect quizlet?

Terms in this set (5) What is the Doctrine of Double Effect? The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end.

See also  Difference between Science and Arts

Where did the doctrine of double effect originated from?

Thomas Aquinas is credited with introducing the principle of double effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art. 7). Killing one’s assailant is justified, he argues, provided one does not intend to kill him.

Can the doctrine of double effect be used to justify an action?

This is known as the doctrine of double effect. This principle is commonly referred to in cases of euthanasia. It is used to justify the case where a doctor gives drugs to a patient to relieve distressing symptoms even though he knows doing this may shorten the patient’s life.

What is double effect in palliative care?

The principle of double effect is a rule of conduct frequently used to determine when a person may lawfully and ethically perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad, and the other good.

Is palliative sedation ethical?

Ethical Issues

Palliative sedation represents a part of the spectrum of good clinical practice when used in the appropriate circumstances. The US Supreme Court has supported the right of informed patients to pursue relief of suffering, even if the treatment may unintentionally shorten life.

What is the difference between terminal sedation and euthanasia?

In the case of terminal sedation, severe physical and psychological suffering prompt the physician to sedate the patient, whereas for patients requesting euthanasia, perceived loss of dignity during the last phase of life is often a major problem.