Double Effect Principle and Traditional Catholicism

[Onegin]

This came to mind when I was reading another topic. I’m not sure how many people here have encountered or are familiar with what is often referred to by many moral theologians as the Principle of Double Effect.

Here’s a short Wikipedia summary: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect
(I’m not sure if CAF has an article on it, but feel free to post it here if they do).

The most popular example of the use of the Double Effect that I have heard repeatedly is to justify operation on an etopic pregnancy even though the death of the child is almost certain to occur. Double Effect says that this is not wrong because the harmful effect (the likely death of the child) is incidental and unintended effect to the main purpose of the procedure (curing the mother’s condition).

I believe this Principle has come under scrutiny from some Traditionalists for various reasons. I’ll withhold my comments initially as I’d like to see what you all have to say first.

What do you think? Is the Principle of Double Effect a legitimate use of reasoning to arrive at a moral conclusion or is it just a “Catholic” excuse to do something that would otherwise be wrong under normal circumstances? Are there perhaps situations where the Principle of Double effect may be used legitimately an others where it could not be justified?

How about the old maxim that one ought never do an evil to bring about a good. Is this distinguishable from Double Effect? If so, why and how?

Thanks in advance for your comments, I am honestly curious to hear them.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

First let me say this is not something I have studied, but I think I can provide some information.

When it comes to an abortion to save the life of the mother, I think we need to make a distinction. The distinction is between performing a medical act that will save the life of the mother, and indirectly cause the end of the life of the fetus, and a medical act that will directly cause the death of the fetus in order to save the life of the mother. The first is permitted, while the second is not.

An example of the first is a tubal pregnancy. The women is permitted to have the tube removed, which will have the effect of killing the child, since killing the child was a secondary effect of the necessary procedure…

On the other hand, if the child in the womb would somehow cause the mother to die (through poisoning of some sort), the mother would not be permitted to abort the child, since the abortion would not be a secondary effect of another procedure, but rather the direct effect of the procedure.

 

[St_Francis]

Sounds like the Feeneyites or something. St Thomas Aquinas came up with this and we’ve had it for 800 years? It’s not like it’s a VII innovation…

 

[otjm]

This came to mind when I was reading another topic. I’m not sure how many people here have encountered or are familiar with what is often referred to by many moral theologians as the Principle of Double Effect.

Here’s a short Wikipedia summary: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect
(I’m not sure if CAF has an article on it, but feel free to post it here if they do).

The most popular example of the use of the Double Effect that I have heard repeatedly is to justify operation on an etopic pregnancy even though the death of the child is almost certain to occur. Double Effect says that this is not wrong because the harmful effect (the likely death of the child) is incidental and unintended effect to the main purpose of the procedure (curing the mother’s condition).

I believe this Principle has come under scrutiny from some Traditionalists for various reasons. I’ll withhold my comments initially as I’d like to see what you all have to say first.

What do you think? Is the Principle of Double Effect a legitimate use of reasoning to arrive at a moral conclusion or is it just a “Catholic” excuse to do something that would otherwise be wrong under normal circumstances? Are there perhaps situations where the Principle of Double effect may be used legitimately an others where it could not be justified?

How about the old maxim that one ought never do an evil to bring about a good. Is this distinguishable from Double Effect? If so, why and how?

Thanks in advance for your comments, I am honestly curious to hear them.

This is not directed to you, but rather an observtion: people who have not studied philosophy often have no understanding of it (which should not be a particularly brilliant observation, but one they often are unaware of); and some who have studied philosophy go off on tangents without realizing that their path has strayed.

If the Magisterium teaches us something we do not understand, or we believe is in error, then the problem most likely is not with the Magisterium, but with our understanding.