DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT

"To do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in
the right way, that is not for every one nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and
laudable and noble."
- Aristotle

We want to do the right thing and that is why were actually doing it but there is
something bad that comes with it. What would be an example of this? For example we respect
individual human life for the moment of conception and in no way that we will violate but
imagine that a pregnant woman has come to her physician and he discovered that she has uterine
cancer, cancer of the uterus or the womb, and if this cancer is not removed she is going to die and
if it is removed the baby is going to die. What will the physician going to do? Hes in a dilemma.
The church is present to provide help and guidance in difficult situations like this
something that is called the Doctrine of Double Effect and it is brought into play when were in a
situation that no matter what we do there is going to have a good effect and a bad effect. So the
question post is can the physician still go ahead and performed this action of removing the
cancerous uterus, which is a good effect if he sees that it also has a bad effect, which is the lost of
the life of the baby? The answer to that question is yes, if four conditions are met:
[1] The act itself has to be good
[2] The only thing he can intent is the good effect not the evil one
[3] The good has to come about on its own and has to precede the evil effect because
other wise he would be saying he will do evil to achieve good
[4] There has to be a proportion that grave reasons for doing it
How would physician apply this principle to the very tragic situation of a pregnant
woman who has a uterine cancer?
First of all physician could remove the uterus because that is removing the cancer or the
patho. All he wants to do, his only intention is to remove the patho, and its not to lead to the
death of the child. He foresees and anticipates that the child will die but that is not what he
intended. Secondly the good of removing the cancerous uterus isnt brought about by the death of
the child; its the good act of removing the cancerous uterus that results unintentionally but in a
form-foreseen way of the death of the child. And the final condition here is that there is a
proportionally grave reason for doing this. The physician is dealing with two lives here and
therefore if there is no other way of resolving this very tragic situation then one may go ahead
and remove the cancerous uterus even though one might foresee of the death of the child.
The Doctrine of the Double effect tells us that were responsible for the bad effect of
another persons further agency, in the sense that we must take it into account in deciding how to
act and we can be accountable for it if at the time of our own prior action. We can reasonably
foresee that another agent will bring about this effect; and in acting as we do we provide someone
else with the means or the opportunity to bring about this effect.
The articulation of this principle of the double effect might help us with some of the
decisions we have to make in the provision of healthcare, for ourselves or for our love ones. It
reminds us that the Catholic Church is concerned above all for the good of individual human
person for their dignity and for the sacredness of human life.