“Direct” and “Indirect”: A Reply to Critics of our Action Theory

The Medical Exception to the Prohibition of Killing: A Matter of the Right Intention?

“…If they are allowed, we may wonder whether the doctrine is not largely losing its bite (Duff , 90; Kuhse , 98). If throwing your body on a grenade in order to save your comrades’ lives need not be condemned as suicide, since you only want your body to function as a shield (Finnis, Grisez, and Boyle , 33), why is a similar action to be condemned if you only want to prevent the cancerous cells in your body from growing further, or to put your nerves out of operation to stop feeling pain? Why, on the other hand, is it still wrong if you do not throw your own body on the grenade but that of one of your comrades?…”

Respect, Coercion, and Religious Reasons

“…However, a doctor who intended to relieve the patient's pain with that same dose and merely foresaw the hastening of the patient's death would act permissibly” (McIntyre , 219). Now, there are many other situations in which acts with deadly effects are distinguished with regard to whether these effects are intentional or merely foreseen and are often invoked as illustrations of the application of the PDE (see McIntyre ; Finnis et al ). But consider the following formulation of the general rationale of the principle: “We are less responsible or culpable (and possibly not responsible or culpable at all) for our actions under those descriptions under which we do them knowingly but do not intend them, than we are for our actions under those descriptions under which we do them knowingly and do intend them” (Chappell 2011, 113).…”

Fastlegers reservasjonsadgang – hyklersk eller velbegrunnet?

“…Én slik plausibel handlingsanalyse som reservasjonslegen kan vise til, kan bygge på naturrettstenkningens prinsipper for etisk vurdering av bidrag til uetiske handlinger (Sulmasy 2008;Finnis et al 2001). Her trekker man et etisk fundamentalt skille mellom intensjonal og materiell medvirkning (eng.…”