End‐of‐Life Decisions and the Reinvented Rule of Double Effect: A Critical Analysis

Bioethics 28 (7):368-377 (2014)
Abstract
The 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
Keywords double effect  sedation therapy  euthanasia  end‐of‐life  utilitarianism  pain relief
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,493
External links
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
Jeff McMahan (1994). Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect. Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
Alison Hills (2003). Defending Double Effect. Philosophical Studies 116 (2):133-152.
Allison McIntyre (2004). The Double Life of Double Effect. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (1):61-74.
Joseph Boyle (1991). Who is Entitled to Double Effect? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.
Sanford S. Levy (1987). Paul Ramsey and the Rule of Double Effect. Journal of Religious Ethics 15 (1):59 - 71.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2012-10-02

Total downloads

9 ( #160,614 of 1,102,514 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

6 ( #47,422 of 1,102,514 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.