PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Double Effect Principle”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Analgesia, virtue, and the principle of double effect.

The principle of double effect is widely used to permit the administration of narcotics and sedatives with the intent to palliate dying patients, even though the administration of these drugs may cause hastening of death. In recent medical literature, this principle's validity has been severely criticized, causing health care providers to fear providing good palliative care. Most of the criticisms levelled at the principle of double effect arise from misconceptions about its purpose and origins. This discussion will explore how virtue-based ethics can overcome the most important challenge to the principle of double effect's validity, that of its reliance on intention to determine whether the administration of analgesia is ethically acceptable.

Analgesics, Opioid↗
PubMed2006

Separation of conjoined twins and the principle of double effect.

This article examines the relationship between the principle of double effect and justification for separation surgeries for conjoined twins. First, the principle of double effect is examined in light of its historical context. It is argued that it can only operate under an absolutist view of good and evil that is compatible with the Bible. Given this foundation for application, scenarios for separating conjoined twins are considered against the criteria for the principle of double effect. It is concluded that the principle of double effect cannot be applied to cases wherein one of the twins must be killed. However, it is noted that this does not leave decision makers without options.

Double Effect Principle↗
PubMed2006

Controlled drugs and the principle of double effect.

The role of district nurses in the effective management of pain in palliative care has been strengthened by recent amendments to the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Regulations 2005 that allow district nurses who are independent or supplementary prescribers to prescribe and administer controlled drugs. However, the right to prescribe controlled drugs also brings increased responsibility and accountability for the safe management of these medicines. In this article Richard Griffith outlines the changes to the law relating to controlled drugs and calls for a clarification of the principle of double effect, to ensure patients in intractable pain receive the analgesia they require to manage their pain and district nurses avoid liability and prosecution under the law of murder.

Analgesics, Opioid↗
PubMed1996

Covert video surveillance and the principle of double effect: a response to criticism.

In some young children brought by their parents for diagnosis of acute life-threatening events investigations suggested imposed apnoea as the cause rather than spontaneous occurrence. Covert video surveillance of the cot in which the baby was monitored allowed confirmation or rebuttal of this diagnosis. That parents were not informed of the video recording was essential for diagnosis and we assert ethically justifiable as the child was the patient to whom a predominant duty of care was owed. The procedure also avoids the risk of separation of child from parent on inadequate information.

Apnea↗
PubMed2002

[Assisted dying and the principle of double effect].

Direct active euthanasia is prohibited in most countries while passive and indirect is not. However, many arguments against the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia are flawed, because a critical ethical difference between passive and active euthanasia is difficult to establish especially when the passivity of the actor causes death. The crucial point is not activity or passivity but respect for the autonomy of individual human beings. In particular there appears to be little ethical difference between active and indirect euthanasia. Indirect euthanasia has often been justified by the doctrine of double effect (Thomas Aquinas), which I argue contains a logical fallacy. This rule does not allow foreseen and unwanted adverse effects of an action to occur when they are avoidable. In terminal sedation, an example for indirect euthanasia, hypoxemia and dehydration can easily be prevented by respirator therapy and fluid administration. Therefore the rule of double effect is not applicable. Indirect and direct active euthanasia cannot be ethically distinguished by resorting to the doctrine of double effect.

Austria↗
PubMed1998

Acts, omissions, intentions and motives: a philosophical examination of the moral distinction between killing and letting die.

Health care professionals frequently justify moral decisions by appealing to the acts and omissions distinction and the principle of double effect. These principles are often quoted and criticised in the nursing literature, particularly in relation to active and passive euthanasia. Authors are, however, inclined to acknowledge the fact that they are a philosophical minefield, but fall short of providing a substantial critical analysis. Those who uphold the acts and omissions distinction claim that we are morally less responsible for our omissions than for our acts. The principle of double effect suggests that there is a moral distinction between direct and indirect intention and that we are morally less responsible for that which we intend indirectly. This article offers an examination of these often quoted, but sometimes little understood, principles and it is hoped that it will serve as a basis for debate. Since the intention is to challenge assumptions which can lull us into believing that our moral decisions can be justified by appealing to principles such as these, it is necessary to examine them critically and to go beyond a superficial grasp of the implications of such distinctions. There is a tendency to appeal to the acts and omissions doctrine and the principle of double effect in life and death situations such as euthanasia, infanticide and abortion, but are they valuable tools which should be used in moral decision making, or are they so flawed that they can seriously mislead us when it comes to hard cases? The conclusion reached in this paper is that there is no significant moral difference between an act and an omission, particularly within the context of killing and letting die, and that the principle of double effect encourages hypocrisy rather than honesty.

Double Effect Principle↗
PubMed2000

Sedation for intractable distress of a dying patient: acute palliative care and the principle of double effect.

Shortly before his death in 1995, Kenneth B. Schwartz, a cancer patient at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), founded the Kenneth B. Schwartz Center at MGH. The Schwartz Center is a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and advancing compassionate health care delivery, which provides hope to the patient, support to caregivers, and encourages the healing process. The Center sponsors the Schwartz Center Rounds, a monthly multidisciplinary forum where caregivers reflect on important psychosocial issues faced by patients, their families, and their caregivers, and gain insight and support from fellow staff members. The case presented is of a young man dying of recurrent epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, distressed with stridor and severe pain, whose poorly controlled symptoms were successfully treated with an infusion of propofol, titrated to provide effective comfort in the last few hours of the patient's life. The tenet of double effect, which allows aggressive treatment of suffering in spite of foreseeable but unintended consequences, is reviewed. The patient's parents were invited and contributed to the Rounds, providing compelling testimony to the power of the presence of clinicians at the time of death and the importance of open communication about difficult ethical issues.

Adult↗