A recent article in the March 2009 edition of Clinical Ethics stated that, ‘In the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas discusses how murder may be justified in self defence’, provided that killing is not intended. This statement is open to challenge on historical and semantic grounds, with respect to the writings of the 13th Century Roman Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). A better appreciation of Aquinas' writings on this topic could inform the debate relating to medical end-of-life decisions. The normatively loaded word ‘murder’ is not applicable to Aquinas' conclusion on unintended homicide, nor is it applicable to unintended homicide in current law, which is by definition not murder.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
TuckeyL, SlowtherA. Five-minute focus: the doctrine of double effect and end-of-life decisions. Clin Ethics2009;4:12–4
UniackeS. The doctrine of double effect. In: AshcroftRE, DawsonA, DraperH, McMillanJR, eds.Principles of Health Care Ethics. 2ndedn.Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2007:263–8
4.
UniackeS. Double effect, principle of. In: CraigE, ed.Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1998. http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/L017SECT2 (last checked 23 April 2009)
5.
PapanikitasA, PapanikitasJ. Acute ethics: risk assessment and the doctrine of double-effect in a referral to on-call urology. Int J Surg; doi. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2009.04.010
6.
GloverJ. Causing Death and Saving Lives: The Moral Problems of Abortion, Infanticide, Suicide, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment, War and Other Life-or-death Choices. Penguin Paperback, 1990:91
7.
QuillT. The ambiguity of clinical intentions. N Engl J Med1993;329:1039–40
