Bioethics 28 (7):368-377 (2014)
AbstractThe Rule of Double Effect (RDE) holds that it may be permissible to harm an individual while acting for the sake of a proportionate good, given that the harm is not an intended means to the good but merely a foreseen side-effect. Although frequently used in medical ethical reasoning, the rule has been repeatedly questioned in the past few decades. However, Daniel Sulmasy, a proponent who has done a lot of work lately defending the RDE, has recently presented a reformulated and more detailed version of the rule. Thanks to its greater precision, this reinvented RDE avoids several problems thought to plague the traditional RDE. Although an improvement compared with the traditional version, we argue that Sulmasy's reinvented RDE will not stand closer scrutiny. Not only has the range of proper applicability narrowed significantly, but, more importantly, Sulmasy fails to establish that there is a morally relevant distinction between intended and foreseen effects. In particular, he fails to establish that there is any distinction that can account for the alleged moral difference between sedation therapy and euthanasia
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Similar books and articles
Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect.Jeff McMahan - 1994 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
Is the Doctrine of Double Effect Irrelevant in End-of-Life Decision Making?Peter Allmark, Mark Cobb, B. Jane Liddle & Angela Mary Tod - 2010 - Nursing Philosophy 11 (3):170-177.
Medical Ethics and Double Effect: The Case of Terminal Sedation.Joseph Boyle - 2004 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (1):51-60.
Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Lawrence Masek - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
The Double Life of Double Effect.Allison McIntyre - 2004 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (1):61-74.
Intention and Responsibility in Double Effect Cases.David K. Chan - 2000 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (4):405-434.
Who is Entitled to Double Effect?Joseph Boyle - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.
Intentions, Foreseen Consequences and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Alison Hills - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 133 (2):257 - 283.
Double-Effect Reasoning: Doing Good and Avoiding Evil.T. A. Cavanaugh - 2006 - Oxford University Press.
The Principle of Double-Effect in a Clinical Context.Rainer Dziewas, Christoph Kellinghaus & Peter S.�R.�S. - 2003 - Poiesis and Praxis 1 (3):211-218.
Continuous Sedation Until Death as Physician-Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia: A Conceptual Analysis.S. H. Lipuma - 2013 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (2):190-204.
Paul Ramsey and the Rule of Double Effect.Sanford S. Levy - 1987 - Journal of Religious Ethics 15 (1):59 - 71.
References found in this work
No references found.
Citations of this work
Knowing, Anticipating, Even Facilitating but Still Not Intending: Another Challenge to Double Effect Reasoning.S. Duckett - 2018 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 15 (1):33-37.
To Treat or Not to Treat a Newborn Child with Severe Brain Damage? A Cross-Sectional Study of Physicians’ and the General Population’s Perceptions of Intentions.Anders Rydvall, Niklas Juth, Mikael Sandlund, Magnus Domellöf & Niels Lynøe - 2014 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17 (1):81-88.
¿La sedación paliativa acorta la vida de los pacientes?Maria de la Luz Casas-Martínez & Ignacio Mora-Magaña - 2017 - Persona y Bioética 21 (2).