David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Poiesis and Praxis 1 (3):211-218 (2003)
Whereas indirect euthanasia is a common clinical practice, active euthanasia remains forbidden in most countries. The reason for this differentiation is usually seen in the principle of double-effect (PDE). PDE states that there is a morally relevant difference between the intended consequences of an action and merely foreseen, unintended side-effects. This article discloses the fundamental assumptions presenting the basis for this application of the PDE and examines whether these assumptions are compatible with the PDE. It is shown that neither a liberal nor a utilitarian point of view makes the utilization of the PDE possible. In accordance with philosophical tradition, only within the doctrine of the sanctity of life does the PDE seem to be applicable. By analysing the premises of this doctrine, and comparing them with those of the PDE, the inconsistency of this idea is demonstrated. It is suggested that the role of the PDE in the current discussion on euthanasia is largely exaggerated
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Joshua Stuchlik (2012). A Critique of Scanlon on Double Effect. Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (2):178-199.
H. M. Giebel (2007). Ends, Means, and Character: Recent Critiques of the Intended-Versus-Forseen Distinction and the Principle of Double Effect. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 81 (3):447-468.
Daniel F. Montaldi (1986). A Defense of St. Thomas and the Principle of Double Effect. Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (2):296 - 332.
Timothy Chappell (2002). Two Distinctions That Do Make a Difference: The Action/Omission Distinction and the Principle of Double Effect. Philosophy 77 (2):211-233.
Alison Hills (2007). Intentions, Foreseen Consequences and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Studies 133 (2):257 - 283.
Frances M. Kamm (1991). The Doctrine of Double Effect: Reflections on Theoretical and Practical Issues. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):571-585.
Jeff McMahan (1994). Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect. Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
Neil Roughley (2007). The Double Failure of 'Double Effect'. In Christoph Lumer & Sandro Nannini (eds.), Intentionality, Deliberation, and Autonomy. Ashgate.
Steven Lee (2004). Double Effect, Double Intention, and Asymmetric Warfare. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (3):233-251.
Joseph Boyle (1991). Who is Entitled to Double Effect? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.
Lawrence Masek (2010). Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
Martin Klein (2004). Voluntary Active Euthanasia and the Doctrine of Double Effect: A View From Germany. Health Care Analysis 12 (3):225-240.
Lawrence Masek (2011). The Contralife Argument and the Principle of Double Effect. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11 (1):83-97.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads9 ( #177,829 of 1,410,432 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #177,872 of 1,410,432 )
How can I increase my downloads?