"Ethics in the Health Care Setting" is an interesting example of a paper on medical ethics. What is Double Effect? Doctrine double effect is an ethical principle, which is used to explain how certain actions are causing considerable damage may be morally permissible if the provocation of such damage is a side effect of promoting a good result. This principle is usually invoked by ethicists who subscribe to ethical or rule-based approach to ethics, especially those who follow the Judeo-Christian ethic. Ethicists such are reluctant to conclude that the property could be due to the damage caused by itself justify the placing on the injury, such as for example, a utilitarian ethicist.
Double Effect refers to the difference between what is expected and what is expected and examines the morality of the difference in determining the negative effects. It is believed that many organizations and governments to justify the actions of this theory in the evaluation of morality and true business practices and policies. Here, in the discussed case Dr. Robinsons also faces the same challenge of double effect as he is confronted with an issue of using the Morphine to treat his patient while at the same time he knows that the use of Morphine might shorten his lifespan.
The double effect has many uses that are described in the ethical or unethical ethics, which can serve as a useful PR industry. In most cases, the theory implies that most of the people and their activities are fundamentally good because the purpose of their actions will have a positive impact (Loewy, Loewy, 2004). Arguments in Favor and Against According to proponents of the doctrine double effect, four conditions must be met for it to be properly invoked to explain the moral acceptability of work, the implementation of which could cause damage as a side effect.
First of all, the act itself is morally good or at least morally neutral. Second, the agent who performs the award will not be a bad influence, but should simply provide that occur as a result of the action. Third, a good effect is to produce the substance directly to perform the instrument, cannot be prepared by a bad influence. In other words, the bad influence cannot be used as a means to ensure a good effect, it may be from artificial material, which is the result of it.
Finally, a good effect is proportionate to the adverse effects. I believe that the case discussed here, has fulfilled all these mentioned criteria So, I would purport the administration of Morphine (Loewy, Loewy, 2004). Doctrine double effect is, however, subject to the criticism that there is no more than a semantic difference between what is expected and what is provided when the doctrine is invoked.
Thus, when a developer built on top of houses, he is supposed to do, and not only to predict the damage to the environment, since are the two effects closely intertwined. As such, it is argued, a fundamental difference in doctrine is untenable (Ashley, Rourke, 1989).
Ashley, B. M., & Rourke, K. D. (1989). Healthcare ethics: a theological analysis (3rd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Catholic Health Association of the United States.
Loewy, E. H., & Loewy, R. S. (2004). Textbook of healthcare ethics (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.