Recently TCSDaily ran an article by Michael Rosen who tried to apply the double-effect principle in Catholic Doctrine to allow ESCR. It seemed to me he was applying a double-talk-effect doctrine to justify the killing of embryos. To TCSDaily’s credit they have now run an article today by Professor Stephen Bainbridge in response to the first article. He correctly evaluates double-effect in light of Rosen’s claim and goes on to explain why it just doesn’t meet the requirementd for double-effect.
2 comments
The principal of double effect can’t ever apply to cases like research. Scientific research assumes that there is a good posibility that the hypothesis of the scientist is false. Thus, it fails to satisfy the condition of immediacy, as there is no clear line of cause and effect. It doesn’t matter if the hypothesis is true, or if good results could come out of bad actions; the fact of the matter is that the scientist irresponsibly committed an intrinsically evil act based on merely an untested hypothesis.
Even if the act is harvesting of the stem cells, not the killing of the embryo, double effect cannot be employed because the good effect of the act does not flow immediately from the action (lives aren’t saved immediately) thus #3 of double effect is not satisfied. Also, science cannot be sure that there will even be a desirable effect. They say there is potential, but that is all. I don’t think double effect can be used when there is only the POTENTIAL for a good effect.