Commentary: Double Effect—Intention is the Solution, Not the Problem
- 1 January 2000
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
- Vol. 28 (1) , 26-29
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00313.x
Abstract
While the author believes that Nuccetelli and Seay have not succeeded in replacing the Rule of Double Effect with a more workable and practical moral principle, he believes they have emphasized a frequently overlooked element: that certain clear conditions must first be met before the Rule can be applied.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Relieving Pain and Foreseeing Death: A Paradox About Accountability and BlameJournal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2000
- The Rule of Double EffectArchives of internal medicine (1960), 1999
- Double-Effect Reasoning from Jean Pierre Gury to Peter KnauerTheological Studies, 1998
- The ethics of death-hastening or death-causing palliative analgesic administration to the terminally IllJournal of Pain and Symptom Management, 1996
- The Use and Abuse of the Principle of Double EffectClinical Pulmonary Medicine, 1996
- Who is Entitled to Double Effect?Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 1991
- The Role and Responsibility of the Moral PhilosopherProceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 1982
- Toward a Consistent Natural-Law Ethics of KillingThe American Journal of Jurisprudence, 1970