Alison McIntyre,"Doctrine of Double Effect,"
What are three common misinterpretations of the DDE?
1) It is a misinterpretation to claim that the principle of double effect shows that agents may permissibly bring about harmful effects provided that they are merely foreseen side effects of promoting a good end. ---> Under DDE you need to consider proportionality of bad vs. good; Michael Walzer would even add that you may have to forgo some of the good to minimize the bad. 2) Confusing difference between intention & side-effect: people may confuse a physician who intends to alleviates suffering with a side effect of death for a physician who intentionally hastens death with a side effect of alleviating suffering 3) Assuming this means agents can do whatves provided that their ultimate aim is a good one that is ordinarily worth pursuing, the proportionality condition is satisfied and the harm is minimized. --> o That is not sufficient; it must also be true that causing the harm is not so implicated as part of their means to this good end that it must count as something that is instrumentally intended to bring about the good end. § A soldier who throws himself on the grenade in order to shield his fellow soldiers acts permissibly if he does not intend to sacrifice his own life in order to save the others. He must merely foresee that his life will end as a side effect of his action.
DDE is often invoked in end-of-life situations; what are the three main assumptions when operating in this realm?
1. It is assumed that the side effect of hastening death is an inevitable or at least likely result of the administration of opioid drugs in order to relieve pain. 2. It is assumed that the hastening of death is a not unwelcome side effect of providing pain relief in the context of palliative care. 3. It is assumed that it would be impermissible to hasten death intentionally in order to cut short the suffering of a terminally ill patient.
What are the 4 conditions of the DDE that the New Catholic Dictionary provides?
1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. 2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary. 3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. 4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect" (p. 1021).
What is Joseph Mangan's definition?
<He adds a part that the bad effect cannot be intended> 1. A person may licitly perform an action that he foresees will produce a good effect and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified at one and the same time: 2. that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent; 3. that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended; 4. that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect; 5. that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect" (1949, p. 43).
What is the Doctrine of Double Effect?
The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. It is claimed that sometimes it is permissible to cause such a harm as a side effect (or "double effect") of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end.
