HEALTH ETHICS

Health ethics

Introduction to Ethics in the Healthcare Setting

Double Effect

The doctrine of double effect is a thesis of moral philosophy, attributed by Thomas Aquinas. It aims to explain the circumstances under which it is permissible to commit an act that has both good and bad consequences (that is to say, a double effect). It contains several necessary conditions for which an action can be morally justified even though it has bad effects. This thesis argues that summary is sometimes justified to produce a bad result if it is only a side effect of the action, and not intentionally sought. This doctrine has many applications, especially in the theories of just war. The doctrine of double effect is disputed by proponents of utilitarianism, who refuse including the possibility that the two actions are identical in their consequences are not of equal value (Marquis, 1991).

The principle of the double effect is one of several ethical theories accepted principle. It states that an action with both morally bad as well morally good with morally neutral consequences is permissible if the bad effects are only unintended side-effects. It is forbidden whenever the intended plans are also towards bad consequences. This is especially the case if the bad consequences are used as means to achieve the good result. According to this principle, the poor result is moral only relevant as far as it is intended by the actor, and thus made ??the object of the will, but not if it is foreseen by him only. The principle of double effect is used occasionally to the present in many legal systems, normative differentiation between active and indirect euthanasia justified. Critics emphasize the principle that for the moral assessment of an action makes no significant difference whether a bad episode is only expected or intended (BBC, n.d.).

Practice of over-medicating terminal patients

Within an ethical theory that absolutely prohibits certain acts; the dilemma can occur that this ban does not allow any act which in a given situation would have been very good and with desirable consequences. In contrast to consequentialism, which in the assessment of an action as morally right or wrong only considers the consequences of the action applied. A common example is the absolute prohibition on killing within Christian ethics. Using the example of the killing of an aggressor in self-defense was a question brought up by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century. He suggested that in self defense, an aggressor can be killed. This can be allowed, because the function associated with the act (morally good) intention is to save one's own life. The killing of the attacker is also an effect of the action as the salvation of one's life. If the killing was not a disproportionate use of force in relation to the severity of the attack, then the death of the attacker has been on self-defense although accepted, but in spite of the absolute force killing ban, there is no reason to let the self-defense appear to be morally wrong (Ashley ...