Health Ethics

Health Ethics

Principle of Double Effect

The principle of double effect is the principle of practical reasoning that is used to determine the legality or illegality of an action that has or may have two effects of which one is good and one is bad. The main idea behind the principle of double effect is that a person is not equally responsible for all the bad effects that follow from the actions, but there is a fundamental difference between those who attempt and those who only provides or should provide (Grace, 1986). It can also be referred to as the principle of non-accountability of evil indirectly produced by a voluntary act directly.

By some enumerations, it would be four or more conditions. These conditions are:

The purpose of the act that is sought and, must be good.

The intention of the act must be good and excludes (not desired, but tolerated) the bad effect of the action, when it will continue.

The action itself must be good or indifferent, as it would not be right to undertake an act that bad e.g. stealing in order to achieve a good end.

There must be a proportionately grave reason to accept the act. That is, the benefit to be gained must be sufficiently serious to justify the implementation of an action that will bring a negative impact negative and less good results expected to be achieved (Grace, 1986).

The principle of double effect is named because the multidimensional and simultaneous effects of a single act can be grouped into two classes: useful or desired, either harmful or unwanted. The principle of double effect assumes that only acts that allow or cause any damage may be morally wrong, but not all acts that allow or cause harm are indeed morally wrong, because in some cases involved a proportionate reason makes a permitted or caused damage which is beyond the purpose of the action in function of greater benefit (Grace, 1986).

Practice of overmedication

Human life is sacred from conception to death. Under no circumstances can directly suppress the. Thus, the serious moral wrongfulness of abortions, infanticide, homicide of pious and simple or direct euthanasia (Bankowski, 1996). We must defend the lives of human beings, being built of body and soul, because it had been created by God and have a transcendent destiny. According to this doctrine, there is a relevant difference morally between having the intent to commit something wrong and provide a negative consequence will occur as unintended side effect of permissible acts morally.

The terminally ill patient is considered as one patient who is critically ill, whose death is inevitable at an early date, despite all our best efforts to improve their health (Grace, 1986). In these patients, we discuss concepts of quality and sanctity of life, pain relief, palliative care, euthanasia, support both the patient and the family and others. As the individual starts getting old, then there is the limitation of drugs treatment and, body is no longer bearable against the ...