Yes, Bill; it may be, especially since one must rely upon the person claiming, "I meant well" to be telling the truth (not only to the listener, but to himself). In CONFESSIONS, did St. Augustine attempt to excuse his extramarital affair (prior to his conversion) by claiming good intentions, I can't remember? At any rate, he is not Aquinas even though each brings the other to mind so I'll just get on with my point. I think your students -- products of the modern era and thus familiar with the "Stand Your Ground Law" -- are correct in viewing the ever-so-slight variation on Utilitarian thinking with the hermeneutics of suspicion. "God don't like evil," my mother used to say and I always assumed that this meant breaking the Ten Commandments was wrong no matter what excuse I could offer up.

Bill, I wish I had your students in my Business Ethics class; mine are so steeped in the No-Fault aspects of this age that they enthusiastically embrace any theoretical underpinnings to claim, "Dr. Alexis, it's not my fault; I couldn't upload my paper in the DropBox by the deadline because it was down, broken, rejecting papers; my dog died; my paper was blown away in the Sandy Storm; and at any rate, I have been suffering from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from too much texting and couldn't use my fingers."

Gwen

Dear Bill,

You raise an important question, and your analysis of Thomas, while very good, is not quite precise enough. A careful reading of 64.7 reveals that Aquinas is not merely saying you cannot "murder" someone (you can never murder someone because it is by definition wrong), but that you can't intend to kill the person. In addition, your desciption of the "operation" is too vague - if one is going to appeal to double effect reasoning it in fact depends on the "intent" in the act of the surgeon. One would have to be more specific about the nature of the surgery being performed to make a moral evaluation on that.

Intent is not about "well-meaning" per se. Also, one must avoid thinking that "intention" is something that only the person doing the action can evaluate. That's poppycock. We can typically evaluate another person's intention in their action. Thus, Double-effect reasoning, and confused or sophistical variants of it, can be evaluated in a way analogous to legal reasoning. In the same way a court can evaluate a defendent's explanation of their action - the defendant saying it was 'well-meaning' - the court will still decide whether their defense is credible or even intelligible ... double-effect reasoning has no problem with saying that people can be self-deceived (or lying) about their intentions ...

For more on a variety of historical uses of double effect reasoning, you can look at my 1997 article on the topic (among my publications), which includes an analysis of Thomas Aquinas's discussion in the Summa, and also discusses Anscombe on the mistake of assuming that only the agent can analyze their intentions.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236008093_How_Important_is_the_Doctrine_of_Double_Effect_for_Moral_Theology_Contextualizing_the_Controversy?ev=prf_pub

I'll be interested to hear your comments and criticisms of what I argue there.

John

Article How Important is the Doctrine of Double Effect for Moral The...

You're right, Bill; it was Augustine's father that was rumored to have had affairs with married women. So although Augustine was not guilty of extramarital affairs, he did, as I recall, father a child out of wedlock and then left the mother for yet another mistress. However, what I do not recall is whether he made excuses for this behavior in his tome CONFESSIONS, did he?

Gwen

Suppose that you are terminally hill and in spite of the medication you still suffer a lot and would like the doctor to speed the process. If I follow the double-effect reasoning, the doctor can inject you the terminal dose as long as the doctor focus attention to removing my suffering then it is OK. It is reasoning that encourage turning a blind eye to aspect that is not so good and to focus attention to the good aspect and magically this would make the behavior OK. So focus on good intention and turn a blind eye to bad consequences and it is OK.

The doctor has to follow some ethical rule and in most countries, there is a rule saying that in that case he cannot inject the final dose. Is following rules, ethical rules of the profession always the good way?

My mother was terminally ill of a cancer and after two years of suffering she decided that she did not want to continue to receive treatments to combat the cancer and she then went to a paliative care facility. The policy is to remove suffering with sufficient drug but not actively try to cure. After a month, her tube that was feeding her and hydrating her got accidently disconned and the doctor decided not to re-connect it because he interpret a re-connection (feeding and drinking!!!!) as a treatment. After three days her blood was so thick that her heart could not continue pumping and she died from a cardiac failure. Euthanasy is not allowed in Canada but this type on non-intervention is not consider to be euthanasia!!! . We have to remember that consideration of cost are very important in these decisions although it is not discuss. The longer is a patient care for and the more expensive it is. Very expensive. But nobody will overtly pay attention to that and nobody will even discuss this. The same people in charge of the care are also involved in the admisnistration.

Hard ethical rules, as any laws, after a while every professional lean how to go around it but this is the most best kept secrets of all these professionals (tax professional, real estate professional, medical doctor, engineers, etc) make sure to avoid any discussion about it and every body act as if everything is fine, all ethical laws are perfectly respected, indeed they are but the spirit of these rules is in the garbabe. It is why the focus is on the letters of the laws so we can keep doing what we want. It is why I do not beleive in rules but in the wisdom of an open discussion into a collective open decision process.

Louis,

Thank you so much for sharing your experience on RG and providing such a poignant example of the absence of black and white answers in the area of ethics -- just fields and fields of gray.

Gwen

Gwen: Not that I recall.

John: I am aware of the distinction you make. I did not want to be tedious in describing my question, so I just gave a brief overview. I was, however, unaware of the Anscombe piece which you mentioned here. I am a big fan of Anscombe and have my students all read her Modern Moral Philosophy. I look forward to reading your article.

Louis: I am very sorry to hear about your mother. It sounds as if Canada makes a very marked distinction between passive and active euthanasia, such that they do not consider passive (although this sounds like neglect - if the tube was "accidently" disconnected and no one reconnected it) euthanasia to be true euthanasia. I hesitate to speak theoretically about an issue that you have practical and personal experience of, but I do wish to respond.

The intention, if it is to be true Double-Effect, must not be to kill. The intention must be to comfort. The point being that some elderly or sickly people may be so physically weak that normal doses of analgesics can inadvertently kill them as a side effect of relieving their pain. This is not stealthy active euthanasia, or an attempt to hide one's true motives, but this is a genuine attempt to relieve suffering by means of anesthesia, which has the unfortunate and unintended effect of ending the patient's life.

What your mother experienced remains illegal in every State in the USA, including Oregon. Be that as it may, a number of anonymous doctors and nurses have admitted, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, to performing what they call "mercy killings". So, the same behaviors are occurring in both of our countries.

Bill,

I tried to advocate against the double-effect as I perceive the concept. You initiated the thread in saying that you support the concept. The concept depend on the agent good intention.

It seems that the concept allows to getting closer the the fanatist slope. Fanatics are absolutely convinced of their cause and so are model of peoples with good intentions. They are so much so that they are ready to give their lifes and become martyr. I think that we should tell them that their good intentions are not all there is. Fanaticism is a vast topic that has many aspects and we cannot discuss the whole problematic, but one aspect of it is the shrinking of the world view that is associated with all fanatism. The good intention argument is a dangerous one.

I would like you to defend a little further your point of view on the double-effect because so far I just see it as a direct path to fanaticism.

Louis,

For the sake of understanding the issue under discussion, the context of which is the matter of whether or not it is permissible to use force to defend oneself if one does not intend to kill one's attacker, here is the passage from Aquinas:

"I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity."

As per John's comments above, it is readily apparent that the passage states that "you cannot intend to kill the person". The whole matter is being discussed at the level of one's intentions.

I believe that a doctor can be concerned with palliative care for either an elderly or a physically weak patient who is in great physical discomfort, and can prescribe an appropriate dosage of an analgesic for the purpose of alleviating the pain, which causes his/her weakened and fragile patient to die, because their system is so frail. Indeed, I have seen this happen, and I knew it was a doctor with no intention of euthanizing the person in question. He was trying to help her rest so that her body might recover from surgery.

John I read your paper and enjoyed it. One thing I am puzzled about however in your usage of Anscombe. Her complaint about the inappropriate usage of a "law conception of ethics" was in the context of secular ethics. It would seem decidedly odd to me if Catholic Moral Theology were to relinquish such a conception of ethics. It is the absence of a "thus saith the Lord" back of or behind ethical statements which she found illicit in "writers on moral philosophy from Sidgwick to the present day". If any moral philosophy is warranted in usage of a "law conception of ethics" it would seem to be Catholic Moral Theology. Apart from that I find your paper quite good. I do not personally believe that Double Effect can be the sole property of Catholic Moral Theology inasmuch as Aquinas has so many followers outside of the church. Witness the phenomenon of the atheist philosopher Philippa Foot referring to herself as a Thomist. Even if its proper and best setting is understood by yourself and others to be Catholic theology, it has "overflowed" into the secular arena, and I believe that those from your tradition have something to say to the notion as it is secularly understood.

I heartily agree with your critique of Grisez and the New Natural Law and have elsewhere critiqued it myself. I find it to be more akin to Kant than Thomas at many points. I agree with Jean Porter that Finnis, Boyle, and Grisez's work is “a radical reinterpretation of the traditional doctrine of the natural law.” Although they seem to have an excellent grasp of the corpus of Aquinas' writings (no mean feat in itself), I believe that they would have to acknowledge that their take on Aquinas is not the common perception of his moral reasoning process

Bill,

As I see it everyone is on the same page in discussing this. I mean, it seems everyone is a little concerned about the possibility of the wrongness of an act riding SOLELY on "intent" unless the -- Let's call it -- "innocent intent" holds water when examined by other, presumably independent and unbiased, examiners. This examination may take place in a judicial context or in some other forum of unbiased EXTERNAL opinion --external to the mind of the person committing the act of murder.

And, Bill, from the following excerpt from your quote of Aquinas, it seems that he also was philosophizing with the same set of preconditions:

" And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end."

That is to say, for the Doctrine of "Double Effect" to be defensible in the real world of flesh and blood people (in contrast to the academic world of abstract thought), which is incidentally a world in which very few persons claim to be mind-readers, justice demands obtaining an independent third opinion -- corroborating evidence that the means was justified in light of the end (that end being the loss of someone's life). This is why George Zimmerman had to stand trial for Trayvon Martin's death despite the existence of a "Stand Your Ground Law" in Florida.

Gwen

Hi Bill,

Glad you enjoyed the piece. The use of Anscombe I meant to be referring to - perhaps it is not clear in that piece - is her attack on the "Cartesian psychology" from the 17thC onward that has messed up the doctrine of double effect. Her brief analysis of that is in her piece War and Murder, pp. 58-59 in vol 3 of her collected papers, the Ethics, Religion, and Politics volume. Her attack is on the view that "intention" is something private, that an individual can justify their action by "directing their intention" to whatever it is they want to pretend it is.

Of course the usefulness of double effect is not limited to a particular religious tradition. But I do think that the principle does presume certain philosophical viewpoints (as the rejection of it does as well), and so it certainly functions better (or at least differently) depending on the wider set of viewpoints one holds.

I also agree with you that the use of opiates in end of life care to intentionally hasten death is not an application of the principle of double effect. It must be about the EFFECT of potentially hastening death, not about the INTENT to do so. Otherwise, it would be hte principle of "double intention", not double effect!!

The intent to hasten death is euthanasia, for good or for ill.

And yes, Gwen, I agree with you, that in the use of an opiate that may hasten death, that a third party should be prepared to say that the dose given was the amount needed to relieve the patient's pain or distress. Any significantly higher dose than necessary for that medical function would be clear evidence of intent to kill the patient ...

Finally, although I think Anscombe was a great, great philosopher, her strong association of Christianity with a law conception of ethics was I believe an unfortunate error on her part. While of course the moral law is a significant concept and of import in that tradition, it is not the dominant way to think about the moral life in the (certainly Catholic) Christian tradition. Figures like Augustine and Aquinas clearly have a quasi-Aristotelian understanding of the moral life as about the pursuit of a Christianized eudaimonia - a notion of full flourishing as a human being, one where one's happiness/flourishing is found only in a virtuous life which includes harmonious relationship with God and with one's fellow human (and non-human) creatures. To give only one example, the Summa Theologiae from which Bill quotes - the Summa has over 200 questions discussion vritues and vices. It has less than 10% of that many questions on law. And the majority of the law questions in the Summa are either a commentary on how a Christian figures out which OT laws are relevant for Christians or how the "new law" of the Christian gospel - the need to follow the spirit rather than the letter of law - dominates over a legalistic way of thinking about the law. Thomas Aquinas, for one, certainly does not have a "law" conception of ethics. How Catholic moral theology (and Christianity more generally) devolved into a legalistic way of thinking is well told in Servais Pinckaers' Sources of Christian Ethics and also in The Pinckaers Reader.

I'm attaching a piece which includes double effect thinking on end of life care, and also the introduction to the Pinckaers Reader, which in page xv includes a very brief synopsis of his critique of the manualist (i.e. legalistic) approach to the moral life in the Catholic Christian tradition.

John

Chapter Medically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration in Medicine and M...

And here's the Pinckaers piece

Chapter Introduction to The Pinckaers Reader

Bill,

I agree that it is morally acceptable to guive a terminally ill person just enough drug to alleviate suffering in spite of the fact that it might, and probably is, slightly shorten the life of that person.

I also agree that in the self-defence case, the intention to safe our own life in the case of an agression provided that the violence on our part is the minimal in the circumstances, might be acceptable. Although I think that it would be desirable on my part to elevate my standard (I am not saying that I can) to Jesus's standard: : the other cheek.

But here is a hard case. Suppose a moment that the other person attacking you is a father of four young children with no mother, for some reason you know that, he truly think that you intend to kill his children because you have a gun in your hand but other reasons, and you know that he thinks that, and then he goes for his gun (unthinkable in Canada) and you have 1 second to decide to shoot him or being shooted. Lets assume that you are sixty years old and your children do not need you anymore. What do you do: shoot or be shooted. Orphans or no young orphan?

Forgive me for getting off the subject, Louis; but is it "unthinkable in Canada" because people generally don't have guns? Don't you have the Constitutional right to bear arms in Canada? If you do not, I guess you have not had many incidents where one child accidentally kills another after bringing his father's gun to school (for "Show and Tell"?). Of course, it wouldn't necessarily have to be his father's gun, the 20-year old (Adam Lanza) who killed all of those school children in Sandy Hook, Connecticut just before Xmas last year had his mother's gun.

OK, enough of my off-the-subject intervention; it is just that I thought how wonderful it would be if the "Double Effect Doctrine" rarely resulted in a violent death because the general population is not armed. Of course, I guess one could always pick up a big rock or use a kitchen knife for self-defense.

Gwen

Gwen,

Yes I was referring to the american cultural fascination with guns. Permit for hand gun are very hard to get in Canada and so in practice only police officers have hand gun. But hunting gun in rural areas are common and it is there where children accidentally kills each other because the father forgot to lock away the bullets. It is usually the father gun. Gun are usually a man thing. The american are probably the only nation in the world who put the right to bear arm in their constitution. It is probably the result of the writing of the constitution before the independence in a time of arm conflict. So the father of your constitution were rebel and rebels need guns. It may have to do with US being a country relying on slavery. I am just speculating. Every country have their historical idiosyncratie. Not only the US. American generaly ignore canadian and if they think about them it is about some of our idiosyncratie. We are not more united as you guy. I am a Quebecois, French speaking canadian. On the street here in vancouver, people ask from what country I come from . If I say Quebec, they often do not even know about this province given our large immigrant population here. So I feel an immigrant like two third of the population here.

O conceito de eticamente permissível é sem dúvida um sofisma.

O duplo efeito é muito invocado com a intenção de escamotear ações que seriam puníveis normalmente e são trágicas, mas envolvem impasses nada novos para o conhecimento humano.

Dar cuidado e conforto mesmo que isso implique em eutanásia é outra discussão que envolve o conceito do eticamente permissível. O duplo efeito quando manipulado poderá ocultar positivamente a real intenção portanto é uma doutrina capciosa.

Hi Gisele,

I'M WORKING OFF OF THE FOLLOWING TRANSLATION OF YOUR COMMENT:

"The concept of 'ethically permissible' is undoubtedly a sophism.

"The double effect is much invoked with intent to conceal actions that would be punishable normally and are tragic. This impasse involves nothing new to human knowledge.

"However, giving care and comfort even if that means euthanasia is another discussion entirely and ( I deem it to ) involve the concept of what is ethically permissible.

"The double effect when manipulated can hide the real intent; thus, it is really absolutely nothing but a red herring (a doctrinaire trick)."

BASED ON THIS TRANSLATION, GISELE, I agree that we should not allow the ethical justifications that are permissibly offered in support of actions that may be deemed merciful to be confused with murdering another human being whether in self-defense or not, which can never be considered as "an act of mercy". Indeed, as a lawyer that specializes in Wills, Estates, and Trusts, I have drafted innumerable "Living Wills" by means of which people can determine in advance at what stage they wish for all heroic measures (feeding tubes, etc.) to save their lives to be halted. These Advanced Directives specifically set forth the signer's belief in the "dignity of life" and the signer's wish not to continue "living in a state in which life has no meaning".

Needless to say, when "the plug is pulled" in accordance with the expressed wishes of a dying patient (which wishes were set to pen and ink at a time when the patient was of sound mind and body), we are talking about a completely different animal. Hospitals and Nursing Homes in the U.S. routinely ask entering patients whether they have executed a "Living Will." Hence, Gisele, I share your eagerness to remove euthanasia from this discussion string so that we can get back to whether the Double Effect is being "invoked with intent to conceal actions that would be punishable normally and are tragic" (to borrow from your astute observation via the above translation).

Gwen

Olá

Muito interessante suas ponderações.

A teoria do duplo efeito é da filosofia moral normalmente atribuída a Santo Tomás de Aquino. No fundo a tese visa explicar em quais circunstâncias é permitido tomar uma ação que ao mesmo tempo possui consequências negativas e positivas ( daí, falarmos de duplo efeito).

Mas a teoria de Sto.Tomás de Aquino enunciou diversas exigências indispensáveis que devem ser preenchidas para que então a ação seja julgada como moralmente justificada mesmo que abrigue um efeito negativo ou pernicioso.

Entre essas exigências temos: a ação deve ser mesmo boa ou pelo menos moralmente neutra; o efeito positivo deve resultar do ato e não do efeito negativo; e por fim, o efeito positivo deve ser mais forte e enfático que o o efeito negativo, ou pelo menos, ambos devem ser iguais.

Por conta da tese do duplo efeito se sustenta que existem situações onde é justificável produzir um efeito ruim se esta é apenas mero efeito colateral da ação e não intencionalmente buscado...

Aliás, há um dito popular aqui no Brasil: de boas intenções o inferno está cheio!!!

A tese em questão tem muitas aplicações, principalmente na teoria da guerra justa o que nos remete fatalmente há temas contemporâneos, tais como a eutanásia, o aborto, a manipulação genética do genoma humano,e ainda, as decisões bélicas e políticas de Estado;

Outro viés ainda trazido pela teoria do duplo efeito é analisar o conceito e a extensão aplicativa do que chamamos legítima defesa.

A intenção de se manter vivo, a necessidade premente de sobreviver, tende a conservar no ser o que é natural e moralmente lícito. Mas, é muito importante frisar que tal teoria não se aplica quando o efeito bom só surge exatamente a partir do efeito mau, ou seja, o efeito bom não pode ser fruto do efeito mau.

A teoria do duplo efeito gera ao mesmo tempo,uma simultânea bifurcação. Portanto, caso os efeitos não sejam simultâneos, a teoria não é aplicável.

Os principais críticos dessa doutrina são os defensores do utilitarismo que defendem que duas ações idênticas nas suas consequências devem ser de igual valor moral.....

Mas, uma coisa me inquieta... o que seria igualdade num valor moral? No meu modesto entendimento, os valores morais apenas se aproximam, mas nunca se igualam...

Abs

Gisele

Дорогая Gisele,

Большое спасибо за красивые буквы и слова. Я начинаю любить португальский. А то, что я его не понимаю, так это пустяки, не правда ли?

привет

Весьма интересные весов. Теория двойной эффект Моральная философия и обычно приписывается Св. Фомы Аквинского . На заднем планедиссертация призвана объяснить их Quais обстоятельства и позволили Действуй что один том же темпе имеет отрицательные последствия и положительные ( Дай, говорит о двойной эффект). Но теория провозглашенные Sto.Tomás Аквинского Многочисленные необходимым требованиям, которые должны служить выполнены в этом пункте , то действие как судят морально оправданным быть еще что приют гул Отрицательный эффект UO пагубной . Среди этих требований являются: действие должно быть хорошо или даже по меньшей мере нравственно нейтральными , положительный эффект они действуют и результат должен Расположение : У негативный эффект, и, наконец , положительный эффект должен быть сильным и решительным оо Какое влияние Отрицательное Или по крайней мере , оба должны быть равны. На счету диссертацию двойной эффект выдержан что бывают ситуации, когда и оправданно Эффект Produce гул BAD И если это только простые побочным эффектом действий и Расположение: не намеренно искал ... Псевдоним Ха сказал гул популярны здесь, в Бразилии : от хороших намерений Ад Полный ЭТО! TEM диссертацию Вопрос них много приложений, особенно в теории справедливой войны Непрозрачные Н.Н. относится смертельно ТАМ современного такие вопросы, как эвтаназия , аборты, генетические манипуляции в геноме человека , а еще , как сделать войну и государственной политики; Другое Для смещения STILL принесла теория и двойным эффектом анализа понятия и продлению аппликативного Как мы называем законной обороны . Намерении провести живой , настоятельная необходимость , чтобы выжить , он стремится быть неоставить, а что природные и морально законным . Но очень важна и что такое теория стресса не применяется, когдахороший эффект только вспышка именно вы Breaking Bad эффекта, т.е. эффект хороший Расположение: Не будучи плод может сделать плохой эффект . Теория двойного эффекта порождает то же время,одновременное бифуркации. Поэтому, если цель OS Não пусть одновременной Теория НЕПРИМЕНИМО E. Эта доктрина основных Критики ОС Какой ОС Защитники утверждают, утилитаризм Непрозрачные две акции идентичны по своим последствиям услуг должна быть равна моральной ценности ..... Но одна вещь меня беспокоит ... Что бы быть равной моральной ценности ? В моем скромном понимании OS моральные ценности только подход, но никто не смог достичь ... Жизель Абс

Thank you, Giselle, for introducing the many different applications of Double Effect Theory. I must say that I think the theory is more applicable to Just War Theory or other similar governmental policy decisions (so-called decisions of state) than to the situation where a murderer is claiming self-defense. In the act-of-state situations, one may justifiably assume that deliberations occur during which Utilitarian decision-making principles are applied. That is to say, one can have confidence that the decision-makers (government officials and politicians who must worry about getting re-elected during the next political cycle) are deciding on the action that they feel will produce more good than harm. Incidentally, this is what Louis Brassard is trying to get us to focus on with his hypothetical about the young father with 4 young children; i.e., in his hypothetical sparing the life of the father with 4 young dependent children produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Your additional comment about Double Effect Theory not being applicable when a good effect results from a bad (immoral?) action really hearkens back to what my Mother always used to say, “God don’t like ugly.” And, I think this refinement of Double Effect Theory coincides with the notion that it is only valid when the bad effect is “a mere side effect of the action and NOT intentionally brought about.” Of course, killing someone in self-defense is not just an serendipitous “side effect” of the action of, for example, pointing a loaded gun at someone and discharging a fatal bullet.

I also agree wholeheartedly with the popular Brazilian saying about hell being full of people with good intentions. That is likewise a popular saying here in the U.S. with the refinement that we say that “hell is paved with good intentions.” Certainly, this is a useful axiom in evaluating self-proclaimed “innocent intentions” when these innocent intentions cannot be independently verified by corroborating evidence.

Gwen

I am puzzled - I don't know why we are writing in Portuguese and in Cyrillic Russian text here. I have tried to write in Greek on RG and have been unable to get it to accept the Greek font. How are you folks doing this and why are you doing it? Are we trying out new candidates for the next Lingua Franca?

Isn't it just totally cool, Bill? I love it when people express themselves in their native tongue -- completely unfiltered. Be happy that you ask questions that generate transnational interest. Just think how we will increase our cross-cultural literacy with posts in the various languages of the world :>)

Gwen

All ethical doctrines have this funny way of dovetailing into issues of legal argumentation. However, as much as legalistic opinions underpin ethics, it is safe (always safe, really) to accept the doctrine of double effect as a natural consequence and that such effects have to be treated on individual merits to warrant legal justification (ethical justification). All actions are judged according to intentions is a doctrinial position in islamic law. This should fit squarely with a persuasive preentation of the double effect doctrine.

Olá Bill Johnson

Escrevi em português e em russo, posto que anteriormente Vladimir Dusevich havia me escrito em russo... e como existe ferramentas na internet que permite pelo menos uma tradução razoável ao entendimento, fiz a gentileza de responder-lhe em seu idioma ( uma delicadeza meio demodè, reconheço).

Espero que isso não o tenha incomodado e nem ofendido.

Abraços cordiais e acadêmicos

Gisele

Double effect describes, a real issue that doctors experience. One classic example is removing a damaged leg to prevent a patient from going into septicaemia. Removing a leg is generally bad and avoided. However, when the intent is good (saving the life) removing the leg becomes an ethically good, even necessary act. Those who claim that the concept of double-effect is sophistry are, in my experience, pushing an anti-abortion agenda. And also haven't understood the history of sophistry.

Hello Margaret,

Your reply is definitely interesting. I would say most of my students are decidedly pro-choice, so I doubt that is what drives their take on this. What inclines you to feel that an anti-abortion point of view would so strongly condemn double-effect?

Thank you for the illustration of septicaemia. I am assuming that the negative effect in the illustration you give is the action of amputation, which would be a form of mutilation were it not a question of life or limb. In most instances of double-effect which one hears invoked someone dies, but I think your illustration is valid, and points out that this is a broader issue, and that the distinction is really just a matter of degree.

Like yourself, I find no sophistry here, and was surprised by the reaction of my students. I would say that I was unsuccessful in disabusing them of the notion that this is sophistry. The context in which we were having the discussion was one of physician assisted suicide. I was saying that on occasion, in order to deal with pain, a doctor may administer a dose of some analgesic, that all things being equal, would not be lethal, but because of the fragile condition of a patient in decline might prove fatal. I held that we wouldn't hold that doctor culpable of murder if his/her intent was simply to make the patient more comfortable, and not to euthanize them.

Since my training was in Catholic theology the opposition to double effect that I encountered most often was students who felt it was just a sneaky way of justifying an abortion.

Hi Margaret,

Just so I am clear on this; were anti-abortion students mounting this opposition even in situations where an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother? I don't suppose that is the situation so often now; however, it regularly occurred in the past when the medical field was not so far advanced as it is now. In fact, my mother lost two children that she had carried to term because they couldn't get her elevated blood pressure down in the hospital to deliver the babies. She was middle aged at the time of these two pregnancies and already had four children at home so the doctors deemed it better to let her come home to us than to let her die in childbirth in order to bring infants into the world with no mother and only a father at home already supporting 4 children (a black father and all that this entailed in terms of income disparity in the U.S.).

Incidentally, I and my sister were old enough (our two brothers were too young) to understand that Momma was supposed to come home with a new baby each of the two times she didn't; and we were just devastated when she returned from the hospital without our new sibling.

Gwen

My friend Mario told me the story of his mother. She was only 24 and had already seven young children. During the delivery of her eitht children, thing got complicated and the doctor ask Mario's father: ''Sir do we save the baby or do we save the mother?'' Obviously Mario's father made the correct choice but it is amazing that only forty years ago such question could be asked.