Question

Explain if the following scenario could be justified using the principle of double effect. And why?

A health insurance company denies payment for Beth's heart transplant surgery. The insurance company is aware that without the surgery, Beth will likely die, but it argues that the procedure is risky and if they were to cover her surgery it would unfairly take funds away from other patients.

Answer 1

Sol.

The Principle of Double Effect: Do good. Avoid evil. Taken generally, these foundational moral norms offer us clear guidance. The good has the nature of what we ought to pursue; evil, what we should flee. We should preserve ourselves and avoid destruction. We should to reproduce and rear our offspring while warding off the harms a sharp-edged world poses. We should seek knowledge and live with others while shunning ignorance and eschewing offices to our neighbors.

Yet, as we pursue good and avoid evil, tangled mass confronts us, The good we do results in evil; the evil we avoid prevents the realization of some good. For example, the oncologist who seeks to cure by chemotherapy also nauseates, debilities, and sickens his patient. The mother who admonishes her daughter also embarrasses her before peers.

As same as described in the above case the health insurance company denied payment for Beth's heart surgery because they know the health condition of Beth is very critical and chances of Beth lives very less because the procedure is risky. From the perspective of the moral view, it is looking evil but the end result will be good.

Why the principle of double effect justified this scenario?

Because from the perspective of the insurance company, If they do good, then they might save the life of Beth but have spent the huge amount that can be used for other patients whose recovery chances can be very much better than Beth and if they do evil they simply refuse the payment of the amount for the treatment of Beth. In this case, the life of Beith can be lost but the amount can be used for more patients.