(See initial post here.)
A child is born blind and crippled. The doctor gives him poison to produce the good effect of removing a heavy burden from the parents and of preventing suffering to the child. The doctor claims that death, the bad effect, is permitted as a means of obtaining the good effect.
(My analysis in comments)
2 comments:
1. The good effect is the one intended here. The doctor wishes to prevent suffering. The evil effect is the child's death, of course.
2.The action itself (killing the child), however, is evil. Thus the two fold effect cannot be used to justify the doctor's actions which are, then, definitely evil.
This is essentially game over at this point, but I will continue because future cases will be trickier and necessitate further probing.
3. The good effect is, in fact, produced by the evil effect: the suffering of parents and child are only rendered possible by the child's death.
4. The reason is not considered proportionate. Desire to avoid suffering is in no way proportionate to the murder that effects such relief.
Yes, according to the Principle of Double Effect (which I have mostly learned about through a discussion that went on in the Assumption Advocates for Life club about bioptic pregnancies), this poisoning itself would be immoral, and the good could only be attained through evil.
Post a Comment