Pio Nono Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 JMJ 9/13 - St. John Chrysostom [quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Sep 13 2005, 07:17 PM']Ok, good. What do you think it should be called? In bioethics we'd call it involuntary euthaniasia. [right][snapback]722237[/snapback][/right] [/quote] In philosophy, it's simply called killing. Killing may be legitimae. Mercy killing is neither merciful nor killing, but murder wrapped in false charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Why isn't this in the debate table? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marieteresa Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I am just wondering if the doctors would have left the patients there to die...To suffer, to be raped and or murdered. Is that ok? What if we were the patients? Would you want to be abandoned left there alone suffering in the darkness. Praying that we will not be raped or murdered? I had someone close to me suffer and die an painful death and I couldnt imagine them being left alone in a hospital waiting to die. Yes, I know that murder is wrong and goes against God. But if we were in the situation what would we do? If ones mother had 2 days to live would you leave her there to die? i just wanted to put in my random thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I dunno Pio Nono.. seems like we're giving too much credit to the doctors-- and too much semantics (i.e., "likely" and "certain")... I highly doubt the doctors went through all that thought. The intent-- as the impression that the article itself gives-- is that these doctors intended to kill those critically ill patients because they could not help them. It's like shooting a guy who's bleeding to death just to "put him out of his misery". Given their profession, I have a hard time putting this under the category of double-effect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanmeyersmusic Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 without detailed descriptions of both sides of each death, it's unacceptable to assume sin or otherwise. perhaps better for the edification of us all (myself included) one or many of the scholars amongst us could offer specific situations that it would be morally permissable/impermissible depending on the state of the patient, the capacity of the doctor, and the intention of either party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 it would seem that a morally neutral action would be to attempt to leave with them, even if they were too sick to be moved. like in birgitta's example, the administering of the drug can really have no intention other than endangering their life. but the intention of bringing them with you, even though you know it would likely cause their death, is good. I can't understand a situation in which a high dosage of morphine would be administered without the intention of endangering life, there really is no other intention. injecting someone with a high degree of morphine is not a morally neutral action. I could just as likely have shot the person in the stomach, said that my intention was to save them from this suffering and that my action of shooting them in the stomach was intended to shock them into unconsciousness. the broad application of double effect here is a dangerous precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 JMJ 9/13 - St. John Chrysostom [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Sep 13 2005, 08:38 PM']I dunno Pio Nono.. seems like we're giving too much credit to the doctors-- and too much semantics (i.e., "likely" and "certain")... I highly doubt the doctors went through all that thought. The intent-- as the impression that the article itself gives-- is that these doctors intended to kill those critically ill patients because they could not help them. It's like shooting a guy who's bleeding to death just to "put him out of his misery". [right][snapback]722312[/snapback][/right] [/quote] 1. The likely/certain distinction is KEY - if death is likely, then the action is permitted, but if death is certain, the action is forbidden. Philosophers have held this since Aristotle. If you think it's semantics, there's not much I can say to refute you, other than to point you to tradition. 2. It is not clear to me that these doctors intentionally killed these people. If death was the intention, then these doctors are to be blamed and punished. If death was the forseen but not determined outcome of the action, then these doctors are not to be blamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 JMJ 9/13 - St. John Chrysostom [quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 13 2005, 09:22 PM']it would seem that a morally neutral action would be to attempt to leave with them, even if they were too sick to be moved. [right][snapback]722363[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I am not convinced of this, but will allow it for the sake of argument. [quote]like in birgitta's example, the administering of the drug can really have no intention other than endangering their life. but the intention of bringing them with you, even though you know it would likely cause their death, is good. I can't understand a situation in which a high dosage of morphine would be administered without the intention of endangering life, there really is no other intention. injecting someone with a high degree of morphine is not a morally neutral action.[/quote] You're accepting the principle without accepting the application. On what basis is it morally permissible to endanger someone's life in situation (x), but not in situation (y)? Either the application holds with the principle, or both fail. If you're suspicious of the application, then say so, but the principle still holds that this action is permitted if death is not certain. [quote]I could just as likely have shot the person in the stomach, said that my intention was to save them from this suffering and that my action of shooting them in the stomach was intended to shock them into unconsciousness. the broad application of double effect here is a dangerous precedent.[/quote] This is an invalid application; shooting someone in the stomach would not reduce pain at all. The "broad application of double effect" only sits within the philosophical tradition out of which I come. Again, if you don't like the application, then say so, but the principle still holds. Edit: changed "an action is permitted" to "this action is permitted" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC_ Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 The act of killing someone simply because they are disabiled is neither mericiful nor heroic. It is murder, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Let us say objectively not justified. Should never be legal. Let the culpability rest in God's hands and pray for all concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I'm not arguing about their culpability, double effect would not merely label them inculpable but make their actions not wrong. culpability is about their individual blame for a wrong. if no wrong was committed, there is not even a discussion of culpability. I believe and agree with the principal of double effect. I think the application of it here is a big stretch. why? because administering large amounts of a drug this way is an action that is causing harm to the person directly. morphine in order to ease and/or numb the pain, while I disagree with the philosophy of anti-suffering that causes this to be the first and most obvious thing to do for a person, is not morally impermissable. it is clear from this artical that they were administering lethal doses and that they knew they were administering lethal doses. if administering large amounts of morphine to dull the pain is a morally neutral action, then it would also be permitted in circumstances outside of this situation, would it not? in any nursing home or hospital where someone lives in pain and suffering, we could administer large amounts of morphine even if it put their life in danger with the intention of dulling their pain? I fail to see the administration of high doses of morphine as a moral neutral, and as such I fail to see the application of double effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 [quote name='Pio Nono' date='Sep 13 2005, 11:10 PM']JMJ 9/13 - St. John Chrysostom 1. The likely/certain distinction is KEY - if death is likely, then the action is permitted, but if death is certain, the action is forbidden. Philosophers have held this since Aristotle. If you think it's semantics, there's not much I can say to refute you, other than to point you to tradition.[/quote] Fair enough, but this was meant in context with the intent of the doctor... [quote]2. It is not clear to me that these doctors intentionally killed these people. If death was the intention, then these doctors are to be blamed and punished. If death was the forseen but not determined outcome of the action, then these doctors are not to be blamed. [right][snapback]722437[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Did you read the article? The intent was TO KILL these patients so they would be dead when the doctors left... [quote]One New Orleans doctor told how she "prayed for God to have mercy on her soul" after[b] she ignored every tenet of medical ethics and ended the lives of patients[/b] she had earlier fought to save... One emergency official, William Forest McQueen, said: "Those who had no chance of making it were [b]given a lot of morphine and lain down in a dark place [i]to die[/i][/b].".... [u]Euthanasia is illegal in Louisiana and the doctors spoke only on condition on anonymity[/u]... "I injected morphine into those patients who were dying and in agony... "[b]If the first dose was not enough, I [u]gave a double dose[/u][/b]... Mr McQueen, a utility manager for the town of Abita Springs, half an hour north of New Orleans, told relatives that patients had been "put down", saying: [b]"They injected them, but nurses stayed with them until they died[/b]."[/quote] Sounds pretty purposeful on the dying part to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 JMJ 9/14 - Triumph of the Holy Cross [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Sep 14 2005, 05:48 AM']Did you read the article? The intent was TO KILL these patients so they would be dead when the doctors left... Sounds pretty purposeful on the dying part to me... [right][snapback]722695[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Thanks for this; re-reading the article shed some light on this doctor's intentions. I concede that this particular case does sound like murder due to the intentions of this doctor. Thanks for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 JMJ 9/14 - Triumph of the Holy Cross [quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 14 2005, 01:48 AM']I believe and agree with the principal of double effect. I think the application of it here is a big stretch. why? because administering large amounts of a drug this way is an action that is causing harm to the person directly.[right][snapback]722677[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Causing [i]harm[/i] is not the issue; in fact, causing harm is more often permissible than not (i.e. surgery, bone re-setting, &c.). Causing [i]death[/i] is the issue here. [quote]morphine in order to ease and/or numb the pain, while I disagree with the philosophy of anti-suffering that causes this to be the first and most obvious thing to do for a person, is not morally impermissable. it is clear from this artical that they were administering lethal doses and that they knew they were administering lethal doses.[/quote] I'll agree with the latter statement upon Fides_et_Ratio's re-reading of the article for me. The former statement, though, is simply not true - examine the act. What is the object? Giving morphine. Licit. What is the intention? If the intention is to dull pain, then it is [i]morally licit[/i] - otherwise, post-op patients would be in big trouble. We've seen that this is not the case here, though. How much morphine is given lies in the realm of circumstances - "enough to cause death" is not morally licit, while "enough that death is likely" is perfectly licit in my mind. [quote]if administering large amounts of morphine to dull the pain is a morally neutral action, then it would also be permitted in circumstances outside of this situation, would it not? in any nursing home or hospital where someone lives in pain and suffering, we could administer large amounts of morphine even if it put their life in danger with the intention of dulling their pain?[/quote] People are often given painkillers to dull pain. But let us not say that each circumstance merits the same treatment - a broken leg does not merit life-endangering medication. However, being on top of a burning building with no forseeable chance of survival might allow for it. Circumstances [i]change[/i] and cannot be treated the same in each particular act. Though administration of mass amounts of morphine (object) for the numbing of pain (intention) might be made licit in an extreme circumstance (cf. burning building), it is not licit in minor circumstances (i.e. stubbed toe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birgitta Noel Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 [quote name='Pio Nono' date='Sep 13 2005, 10:10 PM']JMJ 9/13 - St. John Chrysostom 1. The likely/certain distinction is KEY - if death is likely, then the action is permitted, but if death is certain, the action is forbidden. Philosophers have held this since Aristotle. If you think it's semantics, there's not much I can say to refute you, other than to point you to tradition. [right][snapback]722437[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Pio Nono, With all respect I have to disagree with this statement. The likely/certain distinction doesn't hold. Double effect discusses a forseen but [i]unintended[/i] consequence of a morally neutral action. In the examples I gave re the ectopic pregnancy the death of the child is certain, it is forseen, but it is unintended. Here the administration of morphene is intended to kill the patient, death is also certain, but it fails double effect because it is an [i]intended[/i] consequence, even though the action, the administration of a high dose of morphene is morally neutral (especially since everyones tolerance for morphene is different). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now