PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15828161

Euthanasia, double effect, and proportionality.

Lawrence Johnson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

I discuss the Principle of Double Effect (PDE) as a means of exploring aspects of the motivation of active voluntary euthanasia (a.v.e). It is argued that the objective of a.v.e. is not death but the relief of suffering. Nor is death the means, it is a concomitant. I entertain no hope of convincing the typical proponent of PDE that a.v.e. is morally acceptable. However, I point out that a central strength of the PDE is its insistence on due proportionality between outcomes. When a.v.e. is appropriate, as sometimes it is, death is not out of proportion to the relief of suffering.

Explore related subjects

Double Effect PrincipleEthical AnalysisEuthanasia, Active, VoluntaryHumansIntentionPalliative CareSuicideAnalytical ApproachDeath and EuthanasiaPhilosophical ApproachJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Lawrence Johnson. 2002. Euthanasia, double effect, and proportionality.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03351268

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2004

Ethics and conjoined twins.

INTRODUCTION: The birth of live conjoined twins in a community can draw considerable attention to the appropriate ethical issues. DISCUSSION: The management requires the skills of a multi-disciplinary team of clinicians who have seldom faced the challenge. The team leader must draw together principles of a medical, social, cultural, religious and legal nature in reaching the best outcome. Often the basic question is whether one child should die or both? At times the question is raised whether it is justifiable to sacrifice one life to save the other. In these days of high technology, surgeons can be tempted to go a bridge too far. In reaching this decision there can be numerous hidden conflicts of interest. Increasingly the final decision needs to be made and approved by the courts so as to protect the rights of the twins and to ensure surgical intervention is not an unlawful act.

Double Effect Principle↗
PubMed2004

The double life of double effect.

The U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion in Vacco v. Quill assumes that the principle of double effect explains the permissibility of hastening death in the context of ordinary palliative care and in extraordinary cases in which painkilling drugs have failed to relieve especially intractable suffering and terminal sedation has been adopted as a last resort. The traditional doctrine of double effect, understood as providing a prohibition on instrumental harming as opposed to incidental harming or harming as a side effect, must be distinguished from other ways in which the claim that a result is not intended might be offered as part of a justification for it. Although double effect might appropriately be invoked as a constraint on ordinary palliative care, it is not clear that it can be coherently extended to justify such practices as terminal sedation. A better approach would reconsider double effect's traditional prohibition on hastening death as a means to relieve suffering in the context of acute palliative care.

Double Effect Principle↗