Abstract
A recent administrative law decision in Victoria, Australia, applied double effect reasoning in a novel way. Double effect reasoning has hitherto been used to legitimate treatments which may shorten life but where the intent of treatment is pain relief. The situation reviewed by the Victorian tribunal went further, supporting actions where a doctor agrees to provide pentobarbitone (Nembutal) to a patient at some time in the future if the patient feels at that time that his pain is unbearable and he wants to end his life. The offer to provide the drug was described as a palliative treatment in that it gave reassurance and comfort to the patient. Double effect reasoning was extended in this instance to encompass potentially facilitating a patient’s death. This extension further muddies the murky double effect reasoning waters and creates another challenge to this concept.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, R. 2007. Boyle and the principle of double effect. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 52(1): 259–272.
Angner, E. 2016. A course in behavioral economics. London; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Aquinas, St Thomas. 2006. Summa theologica Part II (Secunda secundae). Project Gutenberg. Translated by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province.
Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boyle, J.M. 1980. Toward understanding the principle of double effect. Ethics 90(4): 527–538.
———1991. Who is entitled to double effect? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16(5): 475–494.
———2004. Medical ethics and double effect: The case of terminal sedation. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25(1): 51–60.
Cavanaugh, T.A. 1997. Aquinas’s account of double effect. The Thomist 61(1): 107–121.
Donagan, A. 1991. Moral absolutism and the double-effect exception: Reflections on Joseph Boyle’s “Who is entitled to double-effect?” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16(5): 495–509.
Douglas, C.D., I.H. Kerridge, and R.A. Ankeny. 2013. Narratives of “terminal sedation,” and the importance of the intention-foresight distinction in palliative care practice. Bioethics 27(1): 1–11.
———2014. Double meanings will not save the principle of double effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39(3): 304–316.
Goldworth, A. 2008. Deception and the principle of double effect. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 17(4): 471–472.
Hawryluck, L.A., and W.R.C. Harvey. 2000. Analgesia, virtue, and the principle of double effect. Journal of Palliative Care 16: S24–30.
Juth, N., A. Lindblad, N. Lynöe, M. Sjöstrand, G. Helgesson. 2013. Moral differences in deep continuous palliative sedation and euthanasia. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care 3(2): 203–206.
Keenan, J.F. 1993. The function of the principle of double effect. Theological Studies 54(2): 294–315.
Knauer, P. 1967. The hermeneutic function of the principle of double effect. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 12(1): 132–162.
Lindblad, A., N. Lynöe, and N. Juth. 2014. End-of-life decisions and the reinvented rule of double effect: A critical analysis. Bioethics 28(7): 368–377.
Mangan, J.T. 1949. An historical analysis of the principle of double effect. Theological Studies 10(1): 41–61.
Marquis, D.B. 1991. Four versions of double effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16(5): 515–544.
McIntyre, A. 2001. Doing away with double effect Ethics 111(2): 219–255.
Mikhail, J.M. 2011. Elements of moral cognition: Rawls’ linguistic analogy and the cognitive science of moral and legal judgment. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nelkin, D.K., and S.C. Rickless. 2015. So close, yet so far: Why solutions to the closeness problem for the doctrine of double effect fall short. Noûs 49(2): 376–409.
Quinn, W.S. 1989. Actions, intentions, and consequences: The doctrine of double effect. Philosophy and Public Affairs 18(4): 334–351.
Raus, K., and S. Sterckx 2016. How defining clinical practices may influence their evaluation: The case of continuous sedation at the end of life. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 22(3): 425–432.
Reed, P.A. 2012. The danger of double effect. Christian Bioethics 18(3): 287–300.
Schroth, J. 2014. Bibliography on the principle of double effect. http://www.ethikseite.de/bib/bpdw.pdf. Accessed November 4, 2017
Singer, P. 2011. Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Victoria Parliament Legislative Council Legal and Social Issues Committee. 2016. Inquiry into end of life choices: Final report. Melbourne: Parliament of Victoria.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Duckett, S. Knowing, Anticipating, Even Facilitating but Still not Intending: Another Challenge to Double Effect Reasoning. Bioethical Inquiry 15, 33–37 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-017-9827-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-017-9827-4