Authors
Abstract
The “doctrine of double effect” has a pleasing ring to it. It is regarded by some as the cornerstone of any sound approach to end-of-life issues and by others as religious mumbo jumbo. Discussions about “the doctrine” often generate more heat than light. They are often conducted at cross-purposes and laced with footnotes from Leviticus
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0963180110000629
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,079
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Principles of Biomedical Ethics.Tom L. Beauchamp - 1979 - Oxford University Press.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Intention, Foresight, and Ending Life.Andrew Mcgee - 2013 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 22 (1):77-85.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Danger of Double Effect.P. A. Reed - 2012 - Christian Bioethics 18 (3):287-300.
Who is Entitled to Double Effect?Joseph Boyle - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.
Some Light on Double Effect.James G. Hanink - 1975 - Analysis 35 (5):147 - 151.
Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Lawrence Masek - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
Intention and Responsibility in Double Effect Cases.David K. Chan - 2000 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (4):405-434.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-12-09

Total views
46 ( #246,029 of 2,506,107 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #277,380 of 2,506,107 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes