Related Experiment Videos
The doctrine of double effect: reflections on theoretical and practical issues
1Department of Philosophy, New York University, New York 10003.
The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
|October 1, 1991
Summary
Neither the Doctrine of Double Effect nor the Principle of Do No Harm are fully correct. Revisionist analysis is needed for ethical constraints on actions and omissions, especially in medical contexts.
Area of Science:
- Medical Ethics
- Moral Philosophy
- Bioethics
Background:
- The Doctrine of Double Effect and the Principle of Do No Harm are foundational ethical principles.
- These principles guide actions in complex situations, particularly in medicine.
- Previous analyses by Boyle, Donagan, and Quinn are acknowledged.
Discussion:
- This paper critiques the absolute correctness of both the Doctrine of Double Effect and the Principle of Do No Harm.
- It explores various approaches to 'deflection of threat' scenarios.
- Arguments for the permissibility of voluntary euthanasia are examined.
Key Insights:
- Neither principle is universally correct; revision is necessary.
- Ethical constraints on actions and omissions require a non-absolutist, revisionist approach.
- Intentionally harming some to benefit others can be justified in medical contexts, with or without consent.
Outlook:
- Further development of non-absolutist ethical frameworks is needed.
- The findings have implications for medical decision-making and policy.
- Continued debate on the ethics of intervention and harm in healthcare is anticipated.