Sir, - Vincent Browne, in a cleverly argued article on the Omagh atrocity (Opinion, August 19th), made the following assertion: "The Catholic doctrine of double effect is another piece of poison that has entered our moral language. Our criminal law has it right: that we should be presumed to intend the forseeable consequences of our actions".
But it is not essentially a Catholic doctrine. It is a philosophical principle recognised in British law since the 1950s. In a letter to the Daily Telegraph (last April 9th), Lord Walton, chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, articulated the principle forcibly. It is understood by the medical profession throughout the world, mostly people with no allegiance to the Catholic Church.
The double-effect principle is most clearly seen in the treatment of the terminally ill. A doctor administers morphine to relieve intense pain, knowing that it may also shorten life, but that is not his intention. Should the doctor be hauled before the courts for shortening the patient's life while relieving his pain? Is he a criminal because the outcome was forseeable? Drugs are prescribed daily to keep patients alive. Drugs carry risks of unwelcome side-effects varying from mild to fatal. The medication is intended to treat the patient's condition and the foreseeable side-effects are unwelcome. Is the doctor to be held criminally responsible for all the foreseeable side-effects which may ensue after he has carefully weighed the risks and benefits to the patient in accordance with the current state of medical knowledge. Nonsense! if that burden were placed on medical practitioners there would be few doctors.
In the above cases a person tries to do good by moral means and an unwilled but forseen evil may result. However cleverly Mr Browne may argue, a terrorist group placing bombs that endanger innocent lives cannot credibly claim to be doing something good. True, their objective of an "ideal" society may seem good to them, but their means of attaining it is immoral. This distinction is important. If, say, I were a millionaire concerned with famine in the Sudan and give my money to alleviate it, that would be a good end achieved by moral means. If I were not a millionaire, however, and stole the money to do it, while the good objective is still the same, the means of attaining it are morally repugnant. It is not the principle of double effect which is "poison", but the misapplication of it by Mr Browne. - Yours, etc.,
E. O Raghallaigh,
Mapas Road,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.