London School of Economics and Political Science, Dept. of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, Houghton Street, London WC2A2AE, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2009 Dec;35(12):743-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.030767.
Does the position of the Roman Catholic Church on contraception also imply that the usage of condoms by HIV-discordant couples is illicit? A standard argument is to appeal to the doctrine of double effect to condone such usage, but this meets with the objection that there exists an alternative action that brings about the good effect-namely, abstinence. I argue against this objection, because an HIV-discordant couple does not bring about any bad outcome through condom usage-there is no disrespect displayed for the generative function of sex. One might retort that the badness of condom usage consists in thwarting the unitive function of sex. I argue that also this objection cannot be upheld. In conclusion, if there are no in-principle objections against condom usage for HIV-discordant couples, then policies that deny access to condoms to such couples are indefensible. HIV-discordant couples have a right to continue consummating their marriage in a manner that is minimally risky and this right cannot be trumped by utilitarian concerns that the distribution of condoms might increase promiscuity and along with it the HIV infection rate.
罗马天主教会对避孕的立场是否也意味着，艾滋病毒不一致的夫妇使用避孕套是非法的？一种标准的论点是诉诸双重效应学说来宽恕这种用法，但这遇到了另一种替代行为会带来同样良好效果的反对意见——即禁欲。我反对这种反对意见，因为艾滋病毒不一致的夫妇通过使用避孕套不会带来任何不良后果——他们没有对性行为的生育功能表示不尊重。有人可能会反驳说，使用避孕套的坏处在于阻碍了性行为的统一功能。我认为，这一反对意见也站不住脚。总之，如果对艾滋病毒不一致的夫妇使用避孕套没有原则上的反对意见，那么拒绝向这些夫妇提供避孕套的政策就是站不住脚的。艾滋病毒不一致的夫妇有权以风险最小的方式继续维持他们的婚姻，而这种权利不能被功利主义的担忧所取代，即避孕套的分发可能会增加滥交行为，从而提高艾滋病毒感染率。
