Who is entitled to double effect?

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494 (1991)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The doctrine of double effect continues to be an important tool in bioethical casuistry. Its role within the Catholic moral tradition continues, and there is considerable interest in it by contemporary moral philosophers. But problems of justification and correct application remain. I argue that if the traditional Catholic conviction that there are exceptionless norms prohibiting inflicting some kinds of harms on people is correct, then double effect is justified and necessary. The objection that double effect is superfluous is a rejection of that normative conviction, not a refutation of double effect itself. This justification suggests the correct way of applying double effect to controversial cases. But versions of double effect which dispense with the absolutism of the Catholic tradition lack justification and fall to the objection that double effect is an unnecessary complication. Keywords: double effect, intention, side effect CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-22

Downloads
201 (#90,809)

6 months
11 (#127,802)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Doctrine of double effect.Alison McIntyre - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Lexical priority and the problem of risk.Michael Huemer - 2010 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91 (3):332-351.
Medical ethics and double effect: The case of terminal sedation.Joseph Boyle - 2004 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (1):51-60.

View all 29 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references