scholarly journals We don't torture: Moral resolutions, temptation, and the doctrine of double effect

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 309-329
Author(s):  
Richard Holton
Keyword(s):  
Double Effect ◽  
Doctrine Of Double Effect

Semi-qualitative study of staff attitudes to care following decision to withdraw active treatment in a neonatal intensive care unit

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-138
Author(s):  
M Davie ◽  
A Kaiser
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Active Treatment ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care ◽  
Double Effect ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Staff Attitudes ◽  
Doctrine Of Double Effect ◽  
Normal Dose

The management of an infant after a decision to withdraw active treatment creates dilemmas. Both lingering death and active killing are undesirable, but palliative interventions can hasten death. We investigated what staff on our neonatal unit thought were the limits of acceptable practice and why. We administered a structured interview to elucidate their views, and asked them to justify their answers. The interviews were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. A total of 25 participants (15 nurses and 10 doctors) were recruited. 80% emphasized the importance of pain relief following withdrawal, 60% mentioned meeting parental needs at that time. 76% agreed that death can be a desired consequence of withdrawal, yet 52% felt that death should never be hastened. 96% felt that morphine is acceptable after withdrawal, and 72% would give a higher than normal dose if necessary. 56% would stop paralysis at extubation but not reverse it, while 24% would continue paralysis. 16% would consider a drug that ended life instantly in some cases. A wide variety of views emerged, but there were two main positions, a cautious majority, and a more proactive minority. Apparent contradictions within the majority position could be explained using the doctrine of double effect and the acts and omissions distinction.

Responsibility Rationalized

2020 ◽  
pp. 132-148
Author(s):  
Joel E. Mann
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Double Effect ◽  
Doctrine Of Double Effect ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Early Attempt

Three tetralogies attributed to Antiphon survive, and while all three depict trials for homicide, the second and third are often treated en bloc. Antiphon’s third tetralogy describes a case in which the defendant is accused of intentional homicide. Though commentators typically read the tetralogy as a discussion of causation as such, “Responsibility Rationalized: Action and Pollution in Antiphon’s Tetralogies” reconstructs it as an early attempt to deal with issues of intention and action surrounding around what twentieth-century philosophy came to call the doctrine of double effect. While Antiphon does not articulate the doctrine, he develops a nuanced view that addresses the same concerns about responsibility for consequences that motivate its defenders.

The Doctrine of Double Effect in U.S. Law

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E. Allsopp ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Double Effect ◽  
Doctrine Of Double Effect

On a Purported Error About the Doctrine of Double Effect: A Reply to Sophie Botros

Philosophy ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Whitley R. P. Kaufman
Keyword(s):  
Double Effect ◽  
Doctrine Of Double Effect ◽  
Recent Edition ◽  
Moral Distinction ◽  
Essential Contribution ◽  
Two Sides

In a recent edition of the journal Philosophy, Sophie Botros asserts that modern ethical theorists have badly misunderstood the role of the Doctrine of Double Effect, turning it into a device by which to prohibit actions which are deemed impermissible; whereas the true function of the Doctrine is rather one of justifying actions. In my reply, I argue that Dr Botros has misunderstood the Doctrine: that its ‘prohibitive’ and its ‘justificatory’ roles are merely two sides of the same coin, since its function is to decide for a given action whether it is permissible or impermissible. Furthermore, Dr Botros has misconstrued the essential contribution of the DDE is not the balancing of good results against bad ones, but the quite different position that the crucial moral distinction is between intended and merely foreseen results.

An Error About the Doctrine of Double Effect: A Response to Kaufman's Reply to Botros

Philosophy ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 304-311
Author(s):  
Sophie Botros
Keyword(s):  
Double Effect ◽  
Doctrine Of Double Effect ◽  
Fourth Condition ◽  
Primary Function

In replying to my article ‘An Error about the Doctrine of Double Effect’, Kaufman claims that the permission given by the four-condition Doctrine for certain mixed actions is merely complementary to an absolute prohibition—which he claims is the DDE's primary function. I point out again that in many cases this makes an appeal to the DDE's fourth condition not merely redundant but incoherent. Furthermore, his claim that I am a utilitarian maximizer, frustrated by a doctrine prohibiting intentional harms, however great the net overall benefit, is based on a misrepresentation. I did not object to a candidate for justification under the DDE being rejected before reaching the fourth condition, only to its being accepted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document