David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (1):61-74 (2004)
The U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion in Vacco v. Quill assumes that the principle of double effect explains the permissibility of hastening death in the context of ordinary palliative care and in extraordinary cases in which painkilling drugs have failed to relieve especially intractable suffering and terminal sedation has been adopted as a last resort. The traditional doctrine of double effect, understood as providing a prohibition on instrumental harming as opposed to incidental harming or harming asa side effect, must be distinguished from other ways in which the claim that a result is notintended might be offered as part of ajustification for it. Although double effectmight appropriately be invoked as a constrainton ordinary palliative care, it is not clearthat it can be coherently extended to justifysuch practices as terminal sedation. A betterapproach would reconsider double effect'straditional prohibition on hastening death as ameans to relieve suffering in the context ofacute palliative care.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy Ethics Bioethcis Doctrine of double effect Applied Ethics|
|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
L. A. Jansen (2010). Disambiguating Clinical Intentions: The Ethics of Palliative Sedation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (1):19-31.
Jla Garcia (2007). The Doubling Undone? Double Effect in Recent Medical Ethics. Philosophical Papers 36 (2):245-270.
Prof Dr H. Christof Müller-Busch (2004). „Terminale Sedierung“. Ethik in der Medizin 16 (4):369-377.
Dr med Gerald Neitzke & Andreas Frewer (2004). Sedierung als Sterbehilfe? Ethik in der Medizin 16 (4):323-333.
Similar books and articles
David K. Chan (2000). Intention and Responsibility in Double Effect Cases. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (4):405-434.
Joseph Boyle (1991). Who is Entitled to Double Effect? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.
Whitley R. P. Kaufman (2009). The Paradox of Self-Defense: Saving Oneself by Harming Another. Lexington Books.
Lawrence Masek (2011). The Contralife Argument and the Principle of Double Effect. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11 (1):83-97.
Peter Allmark, Mark Cobb, B. Jane Liddle & Angela Mary Tod (2010). Is the Doctrine of Double Effect Irrelevant in End-of-Life Decision Making? Nursing Philosophy 11 (3):170-177.
Edward C. Lyons (2005). In Incognito: The Principle of Double Effect in American Constitutional Law. Florida Law Review 57 (3):469-563.
Lawrence Masek (2010). Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
T. A. Cavanaugh (2006). Double-Effect Reasoning: Doing Good and Avoiding Evil. Oxford University Press.
Joseph Boyle (2004). Medical Ethics and Double Effect: The Case of Terminal Sedation. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (1):51-60.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads49 ( #68,460 of 1,725,168 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #210,933 of 1,725,168 )
How can I increase my downloads?