DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT

Doctrine of Double Effect

Name of Writer

Name of Institution

Doctrine of Double Effect

This doctrine says that if doing something fairly excellent has a fairly bad side-effect it's legally OK to do it, since offering the bad side-effect wasn't designed. This is real even if you foresaw that the bad impact would probably occur (McIntyre, 2001).

The concept is used to rationalize the situation where a physician gives medication to a individual to reduce upsetting signs even though he knows doing this may decrease the individual's lifestyle.

This is because the physician is not seeking immediately at eliminating the individual - the bad outcome of the individual's dying is a side-effect of the excellent outcome of decreasing the individual's discomfort.

Many physicians use this doctrine to rationalize the use of great amounts of medication such as morphine for the objective of decreasing struggling in terminally-ill sufferers even though they know the medication are likely to cause the individual to die earlier. The Doctrine of double effect is often mentioned in conversations of what is known as modern treatment, health treatment for patients with terminal illness in need of treatment (Cellarius, 2008).

In my viewpoint, the doctor's summary regarding the uselessness of the ethical concept of double effect in modern treatment does not actually follow from the scientific proof they evaluate. Moreover, I think that the writers misinterpreted the true articles of this conventional ethical concept. They condition, for example, “the doctrine of double effect is used as an ethical defense for the specific risk of direct lifestyle reducing as a result of healthcare treatment” (p. 317). Nevertheless, this particular program of the doctrine of double effect does not fatigue the articles of this conventional ethical concept. Actually, the articles of this concept is much further and wider, and I do think that it garden sheds ...