Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 1/2018

01-03-2018 | Critical Perspectives

Knowing, Anticipating, Even Facilitating but Still not Intending: Another Challenge to Double Effect Reasoning

Author: S. Duckett

Published in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

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.
Literature
go back to reference Anderson, R. 2007. Boyle and the principle of double effect. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 52(1): 259–272.CrossRef Anderson, R. 2007. Boyle and the principle of double effect. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 52(1): 259–272.CrossRef
go back to reference Angner, E. 2016. A course in behavioral economics. London; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef Angner, E. 2016. A course in behavioral economics. London; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
go back to reference Aquinas, St Thomas. 2006. Summa theologica Part II (Secunda secundae). Project Gutenberg. Translated by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Aquinas, St Thomas. 2006. Summa theologica Part II (Secunda secundae). Project Gutenberg. Translated by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province.
go back to reference Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Boyle, J.M. 1980. Toward understanding the principle of double effect. Ethics 90(4): 527–538.CrossRef Boyle, J.M. 1980. Toward understanding the principle of double effect. Ethics 90(4): 527–538.CrossRef
go back to reference ———1991. Who is entitled to double effect? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16(5): 475–494.CrossRefPubMed ———1991. Who is entitled to double effect? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16(5): 475–494.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference ———2004. Medical ethics and double effect: The case of terminal sedation. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25(1): 51–60.CrossRefPubMed ———2004. Medical ethics and double effect: The case of terminal sedation. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25(1): 51–60.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Cavanaugh, T.A. 1997. Aquinas’s account of double effect. The Thomist 61(1): 107–121.CrossRef Cavanaugh, T.A. 1997. Aquinas’s account of double effect. The Thomist 61(1): 107–121.CrossRef
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference ———2014. Double meanings will not save the principle of double effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39(3): 304–316.CrossRefPubMed ———2014. Double meanings will not save the principle of double effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39(3): 304–316.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Goldworth, A. 2008. Deception and the principle of double effect. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 17(4): 471–472.CrossRefPubMed Goldworth, A. 2008. Deception and the principle of double effect. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 17(4): 471–472.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Hawryluck, L.A., and W.R.C. Harvey. 2000. Analgesia, virtue, and the principle of double effect. Journal of Palliative Care 16: S24–30.PubMed Hawryluck, L.A., and W.R.C. Harvey. 2000. Analgesia, virtue, and the principle of double effect. Journal of Palliative Care 16: S24–30.PubMed
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
go back to reference Keenan, J.F. 1993. The function of the principle of double effect. Theological Studies 54(2): 294–315.CrossRef Keenan, J.F. 1993. The function of the principle of double effect. Theological Studies 54(2): 294–315.CrossRef
go back to reference Knauer, P. 1967. The hermeneutic function of the principle of double effect. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 12(1): 132–162.CrossRef Knauer, P. 1967. The hermeneutic function of the principle of double effect. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 12(1): 132–162.CrossRef
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Mangan, J.T. 1949. An historical analysis of the principle of double effect. Theological Studies 10(1): 41–61.CrossRef Mangan, J.T. 1949. An historical analysis of the principle of double effect. Theological Studies 10(1): 41–61.CrossRef
go back to reference Marquis, D.B. 1991. Four versions of double effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16(5): 515–544.CrossRefPubMed Marquis, D.B. 1991. Four versions of double effect. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16(5): 515–544.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
go back to reference Quinn, W.S. 1989. Actions, intentions, and consequences: The doctrine of double effect. Philosophy and Public Affairs 18(4): 334–351.PubMed Quinn, W.S. 1989. Actions, intentions, and consequences: The doctrine of double effect. Philosophy and Public Affairs 18(4): 334–351.PubMed
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Reed, P.A. 2012. The danger of double effect. Christian Bioethics 18(3): 287–300.CrossRef Reed, P.A. 2012. The danger of double effect. Christian Bioethics 18(3): 287–300.CrossRef
go back to reference Victoria Parliament Legislative Council Legal and Social Issues Committee. 2016. Inquiry into end of life choices: Final report. Melbourne: Parliament of Victoria. Victoria Parliament Legislative Council Legal and Social Issues Committee. 2016. Inquiry into end of life choices: Final report. Melbourne: Parliament of Victoria.
Metadata
Title
Knowing, Anticipating, Even Facilitating but Still not Intending: Another Challenge to Double Effect Reasoning
Author
S. Duckett
Publication date
01-03-2018
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1176-7529
Electronic ISSN: 1872-4353
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-017-9827-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 1/2018 Go to the issue