This doctrine says that if doing
something morally good has a morally bad side-effect, it's ethically OK to do
it providing the bad side-effect wasn't intended. This is true even if you
foresaw that the bad effect would probably happen.
This might seem counter-intuitive, but the principle is used in
serious argument about some important issues in ethics
Euthanasia
- This
principle is commonly referred to in cases of euthanasia.
It is used to justify the case where a doctor gives drugs to a patient to
relieve distressing symptoms even though he knows doing this may shorten
the patient's life.
- This
is because the doctor is not aiming directly at killing the patient - the
bad result of the patient's death is a side-effect of the
good result of reducing the patient's pain.
- Many
doctors use this doctrine to justify the use of high doses of drugs such
as morphine for the purpose of relieving suffering in terminally-ill
patients even though they know the drugs are likely to cause the patient
to die sooner.
However this is not a blanket justification.
War and civilian deaths
- In
modern warfare it's difficult to ensure that only soldiers get hurt. Despite
the effectiveness of precision weapons, civilians
are often hurt and killed.
- The
doctrine of double effect is sometimes put forward as a defence, but it
does not always apply.
- For
example, if an army base in the middle of a city is bombed and a few
civilians living nearby are killed as well, nothing unethical has been
done, because the army base was a legitimate target and the death of
civilians was not the intention of the bombing (even though their death
could be predicted).
The doctrine of double effect can't be used to defend the use of
weapons of mass destruction, such as non-precision nuclear weapons, area
bombing, or chemical or biological weapons used against a population in
general, since these are so indiscriminate in effect that civilian casualties
can't be regarded as a secondary result.
Abortions when the mother's life is in
danger
- In
cases when saving the life of a pregnant woman causes the death of her
unborn child - for example, performing an abortion
when continuing the pregnancy would risk killing the mother -
some people argue that this is a case of the doctrine of double effect.
- By
this argument, the death of the foetus is merely the side-effect of
medical treatment to save the mother's life.
Other people take the more traditional view that this is a case
of self-defence against a threat (albeit a threat that is innocent and unaware
that it is a threat).
 |
Criticisms of the doctrine
of double effect
We are responsible for all the anticipated
consequences of our actions
·
If we can foresee the two
effects of our action we have to take the moral responsibility for both effects
- we can't get out of trouble by deciding to intend only the effect that suits
us.
Intention is irrelevant
· Some people take the view
that it's sloppy morality to decide the rightness or wrongness of an act by
looking at the intention of the person who carries it out. They think that some
acts are objectively right or wrong, and that the intention of the person who
does them is irrelevant.
·
But most legal systems
regard the intention of a person as a vital element in deciding whether they
have committed a crime, and how serious a crime, especially in cases of causing
death.
