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)
DOI 10.1111/bioe.12001
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,581
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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect.Jeff McMahan - 1994 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
Medical Ethics and Double Effect: The Case of Terminal Sedation.Joseph Boyle - 2004 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (1):51-60.
Defending Double Effect.Alison Hills - 2003 - Philosophical Studies 116 (2):133-152.
Intentions, Motives and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Lawrence Masek - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):567-585.
The Double Life of Double Effect.Allison McIntyre - 2004 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (1):61-74.
Intention and Responsibility in Double Effect Cases.David K. Chan - 2000 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (4):405-434.
Who is Entitled to Double Effect?Joseph Boyle - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):475-494.
Paul Ramsey and the Rule of Double Effect.Sanford S. Levy - 1987 - Journal of Religious Ethics 15 (1):59 - 71.
The Double Failure of 'Double Effect'.Neil Roughley - 2007 - In Christoph Lumer & Sandro Nannini (eds.), Intentionality, Deliberation, and Autonomy. Ashgate.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-10-02

Total views
44 ( #247,655 of 2,461,415 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #448,382 of 2,461,415 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes