I. Introduction:
The principle of double effect is the most complex and the most debated matter this time by theologians and other experts on this field; with its principles and implications – in relation to the issues and crises the humanity is facing. The principle of double effect is brought into play whenever we are considering the performance of an action seen to have two simultaneous effects or result; one is perceives as good and is the one we sincerely desire and intend, and the other is bad or evil is not the object of our illustration but is merely to be tolerated or permitted. The bad or evil effect is such that, if their will be other choice, would rather not occur. Being a social, medical, legal and moral issue, the principle of the double effect is an emotional one. The Christian concept and outlook, traditionally, recognizes the relative value of human life by allowing the possible moral permissibility of this principle (acts). However, in the attempt to clarify what is at stake, in discussing the implications of the said principle, reason must be permitted rather than emotion to reign. In order not to create confusion, since the principle of the double effect is an act which its end is good or evil, or both, the killing of one and the preservation of the other – the definition is already morally charged statement. However, we will not focus on the act in particular, automatically equated with the immoral act of “killing” or unjust killing since this simply suggests the end of discussion. It is better to start the discussion not in conclusion but to explore and expose premises. The principle of the double effect indeed entail killing, nevertheless, this must be determined: (1) whether the action involves the killing of human person, and (2) whether the act is justified or unjust.
Bioethics is a recently coined word; from “bio” which means life and from “ethics” which means morality. It is a branch of Ethics which deals directly with the problem of life and dying, of health and of healing. (It focuses attention to the need for a healthier world in accordance with the dictates of reason.) According to Bernard Haring, “Our main concern and perspectives – will be the promotion of healthy relationship and co-responsibility in creative liberty and fidelity”. (Bioethics, Free and Faithful in Christ, Vol. 3, p3.) Principle of Double Effects – a rule of conduct frequently used in moral theology to determine when a person may lawfully perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad – and the other good.
We have some familiar terms in relation to the principle of double effect. These are some of the common issues and situations wherein the principle of double effect is applied or found. With the definition provided, the principle of double effect comes into picture in every case which matters the vitality of the human life…and of the moralities of every Human action.
Definition of terms:
a. Abortion – Abortion is the intentional expulsion of a fetus which cannot survive by itself outside of the womb of the mother. It is also an attempt to rationalize application and use of the many advances in medical technology. It is a task to underscore the need for inter-disciplinary thinking:
Since Bioethics examines the ethical dimension of problems at the cutting edge of technology, medicine, and biology in their application to life, the area covered is necessarily broad. This is what makes bioethics complex but also an exciting disciplinary. It means that a revolution in thinking is called for; because no one field can claim the territory of life, many specialties and disciplines are needed (An Introduction to Bioethics, p2.)
b. Euthanasia – “mercy killing”- is an act of inducing death painlessly in order to abort the suffering of one afflicted with an incurable or unbearable sickness. In some sense, euthanasia is regarded as murder or homicide. Indeed if directed- the act in itself becomes immoral.
c. Mutilation – is the cutting off of limb or removal of an organ integral to the human body.
Human life is endowed with such great value that we are ordered not to kill, and we are released from this imperative only in exceptional instance. It is the existence of the exceptional instance that must be proven, not basic inviolability of human life from attack! The principle of the double effect, poses a dilemma since the concern is centered on the vitality and inviolability of human life. However, principles presented, as conditions/parameters to be considered to take upon, if we bump into such dilemma on the issue of the principle of the double effect, its applications, in relation to the vitality of human life. Although the topic poses a wide scope of discussion, that I believe will not be contained all together in this paper, yet, I would just like to center on the principles and conditions of the Principle of Double Effect, per se. The premise of this principle can be found in Thomas Aquinas’ discussion of self defense (ST II-II, q. 64, a. 7), but the four conditions of the principle were formulated by Jean Pierre Gury in the mid-nineteenth century.
II. The “Principle of the Double effect” and its Conditions:
1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise, the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more weight than one that affects only an individual; an effect sure to occur deserves greater consideration than one that is only probable; an effect of a moral nature has greater importance than one that deals only with material things.
With regards to the principle presented above, there is a classic example which I can illustrate; a pregnant woman with the cancerous uterus. If the matter is ignored, both the mother and the child inside the womb will die. If the uterus is removed, the fetus will definitely die, however, the life of the mother will be preserved. The removal of the uterus will be allowed to remove because:
1. Removing of the uterus is a morally indifferent action.
2. Preserving the life of the mother in not produced by means of death of the child, but by removing the defective uterus.
3. The direct intention is to save and preserve the life of the mother.
4. The proportionate reason is that the life of the mother is at stake.
III. Moral Stands:
We enter in the realm of a “moral” action; (1) where the action is qualified by intention and circumstances. Experts called this qualified action as “premoral” action; which means (inevitable to human conditions). (2) Although we cannot simple do evil to achieve good, or that a good end doesn’t justify the evil means. Thus the action must be evaluated in the light of intention and circumstance – we can, and inevitably do, commit some premoral evil to achieve good. On the other hand, (3) However, in dealing with this issue, requires that the agent may not morally seek evil, moral or premoral, as an end. The only difficulty here is that with determining the intention of whether this has moral relevance. Thus, in this understanding, it is perceived that the action is now defining the intention, rather that the intention is defining the moral meaning and quality of an action. (4) On the conditions mentioned, the fourth is called now as the “principle of proportionalism” or proportionate reason. This illustrates the balancing of the premoral evils and goods. From this perspective, we could not just simply judge the act-in-itself (means) apart from its relation to the intention (end) in the general/total configuration of the circumstances. Thus, the key here in understanding the morality of an action, then, is the presence or absence of the proportionate reason. Proportionate reason is what distinguishes a premoral or ontic evil from moral evil and a morally right from a morally wrong action.
As the principle and its conditions where presented, I would dwell still in the Natural Law, which the major proponent and promoter is the Catholic Church – that upholds the moral system. The Natural Law binds all men in truth. Vatican II, in its Gaudium et spes, speaks of this law written I the heart: “In the depths of the conscience, man detects the law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love God and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has his heart s law written by God: To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judge”.
With the present mindset of the people today, with the advancement of science, it must be re-emphasize the vitality of human life as gift from God; That there is a need in our society to restore the sense of God. When the sense of God is lost there is also the tendency to lose the sense of man’s dignity and life. The result is practical materialism, which breeds individualism, utilitarianism…hedonism (EV 21-22).
IV. Conclusion:
As a society, we can take no pride on the fact of what is happening on our world today. With the advancement of technology…when everything comes so fast and reduced to mere utility or materiality, even the dignity and vitality of human life is treated with nothing but an object. It seems that this mode f “killing” comes so natural and pleasurable today. One can simple rage war and kill thousands…or millions… a mother can simply destroy the fetus inside the womb for the feeling of unwanted circumstance…when one can simply kill and eliminate life with lethal injections – for the claim to end the suffering of an old or ill person…or to erase the person in the history of society due to his crimes committed. Indeed the Evangelium Vitae is right in saying that men no eventually lost the sense of God. And with that…the respect to life dies with. What world we are with now that evil dwells more in the hearts of man rather than of what is good. We have lost our sense and identity as man – as stressed by Gaudium et spes, out identity which comes from the One who created us after his own image and likeness.
As a matter of life and death, abortion, euthanasia…etc which threatens the dignity and value of human life deserves a discussion that is carried on within the context of our deepest and riches Christian sensibilities.
There is a valuable lesson to be learned from the life of Christ: suffering and even death can be accepted out of love; good can result from the voluntary surrender of power and the use of authority in the service of others. There is no reason, then, for us Christians to be confined to the view that suffering is absurd, an evil to be avoided and resisted no matter what price. It is in this perspective that suffering can be redemptive and can serve life…that some may find the strength to face the pain, anxiety and fear that so often come with an unintended or unwanted pregnancy or illnesses. Thus, let us once again regain our identity as man…created with dignity…made in the image and likeness of
References:
Vincent J. Genovesi. “In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality.” Abortion 338; Principle of Double Effect p. 363; Copy right 2003 by arrangement with the order of St. Benedict, Inc., Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota 56321.
Richard M. Gula. “Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality.” The Morality of Human Action p. 265, 1989 Paulist Press, 997 Macarthur Boulivard,
Ramon B. Agagpay. “Ethics and the Filipino: A Manual on Morals for Students and Educators.” 1991 National Book Store, Inc., Capitol Publishing House, Inc., 3 13 Team Pacific Bldg., Jose C. Cruz cor. F. Legaspi
Austin Flannery, O.P. “
THOMAS AQUINAS, ST 2a2ae, 64.7. Salamanca Collegium Fratrum Discalceatorum . . ., Cursus theologicus . . ., v.7 (
F. J. CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology (2d ed.
www.jaroveritas.wordpress.com. “Celebration of Family Life; Homily of Archbishop Angel N. Lagdameo on the 40th anniversary of the Encyclical Letter of Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, July 25, 2008.
www.newcatholicencyclopedia4.com. 1993-2000, By; Fr. David C. Trosch
No comments:
Post a Comment