Childress J F
Department of Religious Studies, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1993 Jun;3(2):203-16. doi: 10.1353/ken.0.0014.
This essay analyzes the principle of double effect and, to a lesser extent, the distinction between killing and letting die in the context of the Pittsburgh protocol for managing patients who may become non-heart-beating donors or sources of organs for transplantation. It notes several ambiguities and unresolved issues in the Pittsburgh protocol but concludes that neither the principle of double effect nor the distinction between killing and letting die (with the prohibition of the former and the allowance of the latter under some circumstances) erects insurmountable obstacles to the implementation of the protocol. Nevertheless, the requirement of the principle of double effect that the intended good effects outweigh the unintended side effects necessitates careful attention to the probable overall impact of the proposed policy on organ procurement, particularly because public mistrust plays such a significant role in limiting the number of organ donations.
本文分析了双重效应原则，并在一定程度上探讨了在匹兹堡协议管理可能成为非心跳供体或器官移植来源患者的背景下，杀人与听任死亡之间的区别。它指出了匹兹堡协议中存在的一些模糊之处和未解决的问题，但得出结论认为，双重效应原则以及杀人与听任死亡之间的区别（前者被禁止，后者在某些情况下被允许）都没有给该协议的实施造成不可逾越的障碍。然而，双重效应原则要求预期的良好效果超过非预期的副作用，这就需要仔细关注拟议政策对器官获取可能产生的总体影响，特别是因为公众的不信任在限制器官捐赠数量方面发挥着如此重要的作用。
