Introduction

• A pregnant woman is diagnosed with uterine cancer. Is it permissible to operate to remove the cancer, even though doing so will result in the loss of the baby?
• A dying man is in extreme pain. Is it permissible to administer large doses of morphine to reduce the pain, even though doing so will shorten the amount of time the man has left to live?
• A country has been attacked by another. Is it morally permissible for the country that has been attacked to respond by, among other things, bombing its attacker’s industrial centers, even though doing so will also bring about the deaths of some civilian workers?

Cases

• A pregnant woman is diagnosed with uterine cancer. Is it permissible to operate to remove the cancer, even though doing so will result in the loss of the baby? Supporters of the principle of double effect will argue that it is permissible to remove the cancerous uterus (thus also terminating the pregnancy) if this is the only way to stop the spread of the cancer and if the physician does not intend to end the pregnancy, only to remove the cancer. The good effect (removal of the cancer) does not follow from the bad effect (termination of the pregnancy).
• A dying man is in extreme pain. Is it permissible to administer large doses of morphine to reduce the pain, even though doing so will shorten the amount of time the man has left to live? Again, defenders of the principle of double effect will argue that, since the genuine intent is only to relieve the pain and since there is no other way to accomplish this goal, large doses of pain killers may be permitted even though they will hasten the inevitable end of the patient's life.
• A country has been attacked by another. Is it morally permissible for the country that has been attacked to respond by, among other things, bombing its attacker’s industrial centers, even though doing so will also bring about the deaths of some civilian workers? The principle of double effect has been a cornerstone of the wartime policy of many countries, including the United States. Indeed, long range strategic bombers (such as the B-52) are essentially weapons for the mass destruction of civilian populations. Both the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were dropped on civilian centers.

The Arguments

The principle of double effect finds its natural home in deontological, non-consequentialist moral theories, since it turns very specifically on the intention of the moral agent.

Utilitarianism and other consequentialist doctrines give little or no weight to the agent’s intentions, and as a result the principle of double effect makes little sense within such theories.

We will see a similar issue arise when we discuss the difference between killing and letting die, a distinction that is much more meaningful within deontological theories than consequentialist ones.

Typically, for an act to qualify as morally permissible under the principle of the double effect, a number of conditions must be met:

• The act must be morally good or at least morally neutral;
• The agent must intend only the good effect, nor the bad effect;
• The good effect cannot be the causal result of the bad effect;
• There must be a proportionately serious reason for permitting the evil effect;
• There must not be any other, less morally troubling way of accomplishing the good effect.

Source: http://ethicsupdates.net/concepts/double_effect/index.shtml