Abstract
In a recent contribution to this journal, Patrick Tully criticizes my view that the doctrine of double effect does not prohibit a pharmaceutical company from selling a drug that has potentially fatal side-effects and that does not treat a life-threatening condition. Tully alleges my account is too permissive and makes the doctrine irrelevant to decisions about selling harmful products. In the following paper, I respond to Tully’s objections and show that he misinterprets my position and misstates some elements of the doctrine of double effect. I also show how the doctrine constrains some decisions about marketing drugs with potentially fatal side-effects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bennett J. (1995). The Act Itself. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Boyle J. (1991). Who Is Entitled to Double Effect?. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16:475–494
Connell, F. J.: 1967, ‘Principle of Double Effect’, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV (The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, DC)
Donagan A. (1977). The Theory of Morality. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Garrett T. (1966). Business Ethics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs New Jersey
Gibson K. (2006). Business Ethics: People, Profits, and the Planet. McGraw-Hill, Boston
Grisez G. (1997). Difficult Moral Questions. Franciscan Press, Quincy Illinois
Grisez G. (1964). Contraception and the Natural Law. Bruce Publishing, Milwaukee
Kaczor C. (2001). ‘Moral Absolutism and Ectopic Pregnancy’. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26:61–74
Masek, L.: 2000, ‘The Doctrine of Double Effect, Deadly Drugs, and Business Ethics’, Business Ethics Quarterly 10, 483–495; reprinted in Gibson (2006)
McInerny R. (1982). Ethica Thomistica: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, 1st edn. Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC
Quinn W. (1989). Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophy and Public Affairs 18:334–351
Tully P. (2005). The Doctrine of Double Effect and the Question of Constraints on Business Decisions. Journal of Business Ethics 58:51–63
Velasquez M., Brady F. N. (1997). Catholic Natural Law and Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 7:83–107
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Masek, L. Deadly Drugs and the Doctrine of Double Effect: A Reply to Tully. J Bus Ethics 68, 143–151 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9060-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9060-2