The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Sounding Board
PreviousPrevious
Volume 337:1768-1771 December 11, 1997 Number 24
NextNext

The Rule of Double Effect — A Critique of Its Role in End-of-Life Decision Making

Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
-Purchase this article

Commentary
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-PubMed Citation
According to the ethical principle known as the "rule of double effect," effects that would be morally wrong if caused intentionally are permissible if foreseen but unintended. This principle is often cited to explain why certain forms of care at the end of life that result in death are morally permissible and others are not.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 According to the rule, administering high-dose opioids to treat a terminally ill patient's pain may be acceptable even if the medication causes the patient's death. In contrast, the rule does not authorize practices such as physician-assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia, and certain instances of forgoing life-sustaining . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Background

Clinical Applications of the Rule of Double Effect to End-of-Life Decisions

The Rule of Double Effect and U.S. Criminal Law

Ethical and Policy Issues

Conclusions

Address reprint requests to Dr. Quill at the Department of Medicine, Genesee Hospital, 224 Alexander St., Rochester, NY 14607.

References


Related Letters:

The Rule of Double Effect
Preston T. A., Patterson J. R., Hodges M. O., Shorr A. F., Manfredi P. L., Morrison R. S., Meier D. E., Quill T. E., Dresser R., Brock D. W.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 1998; 338:1389-1391, May 7, 1998. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.