 are often faced with this type of balancing test. Oncologists often and justifiably restore their patients to health-an intended good-by means of chemotherapy which at the same time and unavoidably causes in these patients nausea and physical weakness-unintended evils. The chemotherapy treatments are justified, however, insofar as there is a proper at THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA, pt. II-II, Q.64, art. 7, at 1471 (Fathers of the English Dominican Province trans., 1947). 32 Id. 3 Id. 34 Id. 272 CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE proportionality between the goodness of preserving human lifethe directly intended good-and the relatively minor and shortlived discomforts-unintended, though foreseen, evils-caused by the treatment. By contrast, the chemotherapy treatments would not be justified if there were no such proper proportionality. For example, if saving a life through chemotherapy caused not only short-lived discomfort in the patient being saved but also greater harms, such as death, to several others, then there would be no proper proportionality between the intended good and the unintended evils brought about by the action. In such a case, the evil of certain effects-the death of several others, even though not directly intended-would outweigh the good of the directly intended good-the saving of one life-and the evil would thereby turn the otherwise licit act-of saving a life-into an illicit one. It is important to emphasize that the doctrine of double effect does not tell us that an action is justified just so long as its good effects are intended and its evil or harmful effects are unintended. If this were the substance of the doctrine, then the doctrine would absurdly imply that a pest exterminator would be justified in administering poison that killed both rats and children, provided only that the killing of the rats was intended and the killing of children was unintended. Contrary to popular misunderstandings, the doctrine of double effect is not a doctrine about which sorts of acts are automatically justified. Rather, it is a doctrine about which sorts of acts are not automatically unjustified.3 More specifically, it is a doctrine which tells us that not all acts that produce evil or harmful consequences are automatically unjustified; an act which produces evil or harmful consequences may be justified, provided (1) that the evil or harmful consequences are not intended, and (2) that there is a proper proportionality between the good consequences
are often faced with this type of balancing trial. oncologist often and justifiably restore their patient to health - an intended commodity - by means of chemotherapy which at the same time and inescapably induce in these patients nausea and forcible failing - unintended evils. The chemotherapy discussion are justified, however, insofar as there is a proper at THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA, pt. II - II, Q.64, artwork. 7, at 1471 (Fathers of the English Dominican Province trans. , 1947). 32 Id. 3 Id. 34 Id. 272 CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE proportionality between the goodness of preserving human lifethe directly intended commodity - and the relatively minor and shortlived discomforts - unintended, though foreseen, evils - induce by the treatment. By contrast, the chemotherapy treatment would not be justified if there be no such proper proportionality. For example, if saving a life through chemotherapy caused not merely short - lived discomfort in the patient being saved but also greater harms, such as death, to several others, then there would be no proper proportionality between the intended good and the unintended evils brought about by the action. In such a case, the evil of certain consequence - the death of several others, even though not immediately mean - would preponderate the good of the directly intended good - the saving of one life - and the evil would thereby turn the otherwise licit act - of deliver a life - into an illicit one. It is important to emphasize that the doctrine of double effect does not order us that an action is justified just so long as its effective effects are intend and its evil or harmful effects are unintended. If this were the substance of the doctrine, then the doctrine would absurdly imply that a pest exterminator would be justified in administer poison that killed both rats and children, provided only that the killing of the rats was intended and the killing of children was unintended. adverse to popular misunderstandings, the doctrine of double effect is not a doctrine about which sorts of acts of the apostles are automatically justify. Rather, it is a doctrine about which screen of acts are not mechanically unjustified.3 More specifically, it is a doctrine which tells us that not all acts that produce malefic or harmful consequences are automatically unjustified; an act which produces evil or harmful consequences may be justified, provided (1) that the evil or harmful consequences are not intended, and (2) that there is a proper proportion between the good consequences
 arf often faced with this uype of balancing test. Oicologiats oftev and justifiably restore thxir patiebts to health-an intenddd good-by means od chtmotherapy which ef the same tijc and nnavoidably cauxes in theve patients nagsda and physical weakness-unintended evyls. The cjemotherapy trgatmemes adv mustified, however, insofar as thede is a proper at THPMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGLCA, ot. II-II, Q.64, art. 7, at 1471 (Fathers of the Wnglish Domivican Provpuce trans., 1947). 32 Id. 3 Id. 34 Id. 272 CATHOLICS IN POLITKCAL KIFE propotcuonwnity betweei the doodness of igeservitg humam lifethe diregtly mntebded good-and the relavively minor and shottlived divckmforts-unintended, tyough foraseev, evkls-danses by tje vreatment. Bg contrast, rhe chemotherapy trtativmts would nof be jtseified if there were no such proper prokortiknality. For example, if waving a life through chemothewapy caused not only short-lived discomfort in the patixng btikn saxwd but also greater harms, such as death, to sevewzl onhers, then there could be no proprr ptjportionality betwezh fhe intended good wnd the uninrended evyls nrought about by the action. In such a ccse, the evil of certann effects-thz deatn of xeveral others, even thobgh nof directly lntended-wkjld outweigh the gopd of the directly intended dood-the seving of one lifg-and thq evil woupd thcseby turn the othegwise lhcit act-of saving a life-into an illicit oix. It is imporjand tm emphasnze thst the doctrige of double eyfect dozs not tell us tgat an ection is juftified just vl long as itv good esfecrs aee intevaed and its evol or harmful effecrs are unintended. Lf thka were the subsccnxe of the doctrone, thqn tie dosdrine would dbsufdlh implh that a pewg exyerminator would be bustjfied in administetikg poison that kijled both ratx and children, progided onuy thst jhe killing of the rats was intsnded and thc killing of shileren was uniutended. Contrary to popular misunderstanvings, the doctrine of diuble effect is not s doctrine ebout rhich sords of acts are automqtically justifiec. Rather, it is a doctdine atout ahich sorts of acts are not automatically unjustified.3 More specifically, ir is a doctrine whjch yells uf that got elu acts that prodlce evil or harmful consequences are autmmctically unjustified; an act wnizh produces exil or harmful consequendes may ne justified, provided (1) that the evil or harmful consequcnces are not jntendvs, end (2) that there is a propex propirtionaoity between the eooc gonsequencfs
are often faced with this type of Oncologists and justifiably their patients to chemotherapy at the same and unavoidably causes these patients nausea and physical weakness-unintended The chemotherapy treatments are justified, however, insofar as there is a proper at AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA, pt. II-II, Q.64, art. 7, at 1471 (Fathers of the Dominican trans., 32 3 Id. 34 Id. 272 CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE proportionality between the goodness of preserving human directly intended good-and the relatively minor and shortlived though foreseen, evils-caused by treatment. By contrast, the chemotherapy would be justified there no proper proportionality. For if saving a life through chemotherapy caused not only short-lived discomfort in the patient being saved but greater harms, death, to others, there be no proper the intended good and the unintended by the action. In such a case, the of certain death of several others, even though directly intended-would outweigh the good of the directly good-the saving of one life-and the evil would thereby turn the otherwise licit act-of saving an illicit one. It important to emphasize the of effect not tell that an action is justified just so long as its good are intended and its evil or harmful effects are unintended. were substance of the then the doctrine would imply a pest exterminator would in poison rats children, only that the killing the rats was intended and killing of children was the doctrine of double effect is not a about which sorts of acts are automatically Rather, it is a doctrine about which sorts of acts are not unjustified.3 More is a doctrine which tells us that not acts that produce evil harmful consequences are automatically unjustified; an act which produces or consequences may justified, provided (1) the evil or consequences are not (2) that is proper good consequences
 are often faced with this type Of balancinG test. oncOloGiSts oFten And justifiably REstoRe their patients to healtH-an inTeNDed gOOd-By meaNs of cheMOtHERapY wHiCh aT tHE sAme tiMe aNd unavoIdably causEs iN tHese patients NAuSea and physIcaL weakness-uniNteNded evIlS. ThE ChemoTheRapy tReatmeNTs are jUstified, hOwEVer, insOFar as thERE iS a prOper at THOMAS AQUINas, SumMA THEOLOGICA, pT. II-II, Q.64, ArT. 7, At 1471 (fATheRs oF the EnglisH DOminiCAn ProviNCe TRANs., 1947). 32 ID. 3 id. 34 Id. 272 CATHOLICS iN POLITICAL liFE ProporTiOnaLIty betWeen tHe GOodNess of preseRvinG human lifEthe diREctly inTEnded goOd-and tHe rElaTiveLY mInOr aNd SHorTLiVed DIscOmforts-uNiNtEnded, ThouGH FOReseEn, eVils-CauseD by the treatmeNt. BY conTRasT, the cHemotHeraPy TreatMents wOuld nOt Be justified if thEre wEre no such ProPeR prOpOrtioNAlity. FOr eXamPle, if saVing a liFE thRoUGH ChEmotherapy caused noT oNLY sHort-liveD discoMFoRt IN the patiEnT beIng sAVEd but Also GReAter harmS, such aS DeAtH, to seveRaL otherS, tHen TheRe wouLD be nO propeR proportIonalITy between the inTEnded good and tHE uNINtENded EviLs brought abOut bY The aCtioN. in SucH A case, The evIl OF cERtain effects-the deatH oF severAl othErs, even though Not directlY INTended-woUld oUTwEIgh the good of thE direCtly intendED good-the SavinG of one liFe-and the eVIL would thEreBy tUrn The OTHeRwise licit act-OF SaviNg A life-inTo aN illiciT onE. It Is iMpoRtAnt to emphAsize thaT tHe DoCtRinE of doUBle effecT dOes NoT teLl us tHAt an acTion iS jusTiFiED juSt so lonG As ITS gooD eFfEcts Are InTendeD and ITs eVil or haRmful effeCts ARe unInTeNded. If tHis were the subStAnce of the dOcTriNe, then THE doctrinE would absurdly imply that A Pest extErmInatoR wouLd be justiFieD in admIniSTering Poison That kIlLed BOTh ratS ANd ChiLdRen, provideD ONly That tHe KillIng of thE rats was intended anD The Killing of chilDreN was UNInTenDEd. cOntRaRY to POPular misunderstAndings, the DoCTrIne of doublE EffEcT is not a DoctrinE abouT Which soRts of acts Are automaTiCallY JUstIfied. RatheR, it is a doCtrine aboUT whicH SoRts of ActS are noT aUtoMaticAlly unJUstIfied.3 more spEcIficalLy, it iS a Doctrine Which tells us that not all aCts thaT prodUce Evil or harMfuL ConSequences Are aUtomaticalLy uNjuStifiEd; aN Act whIch pROdUceS Evil oR harMFul conseqUEnCes MAY bE justified, pROVIdeD (1) that The EVil or hArmfUl consequences are NOt intended, and (2) tHat tHERe iS a pROper PrOportionality bEtwEeN THe good coNsEquences
 are often faced with this  type of b alanc ing  te st . On colo gists often an d  jus tifiably restore their  pati en t s to he alth- an inte n de d goo d- by  me an s  o f che mot herapywhich at t hesa me time andu na voidably c aus es in thesepat ientsna use a  andphy sical  weakn e ss-uni ntended e vi l s. The chemoth e r ap y tr eatments are just i fi e d, however, in sofaras th e r e i s a  proper at  T HOMAS AQUINAS ,  S U M M A T H EOLOGICA, pt.  II-II, Q.6 4 , a rt. 7,  a t 1 4 71 (Fa thers  o f  th e English D omin ican Prov ince t r ans., 1 9 47). 32  Id. 3  Id . 3 4 Id .  2 72  CA TH O LIC S  I N P O LIT ICAL LIF Epr oport iona l i t y  bet wee n th e goo dness of pres erv ingh uma n lif ethedire ct ly in tended  good -a nd the relative ly m inor andsho rt liv ed  disc o mforts -un int ended,thoughf ore se e n ,  e vils-caused by the  t r e at ment. By  contr a st ,t he chemo th era py t r e atmen ts w o ul d not be  justi f ie dif ther ewere n osuc h p roper prop ortion ality. F or ex a mple, if savin g  a life throu g hc h em o ther apy  caused not  onl y  sho rt-l i ve d d i scomf ort i nt he patient being saved  b ut als o gre ater harms, s uch as dea t h ,  to seve ralo th e rs, then there  woul d be no pr o per prop ortio nality b etween th e intended  go odand  th e un intended evil s brou gh t about  by  the ac tio n.Insuc ha case, t he evilof  c er ta ineffec t s-the de at h o fsev eralo thers,  even  tho ug hn otdirectl y  i n t ende d- wo uldout we igh t he g o odof thedirectlyint e nded  g oo d-the s aving of oneli fe-and the  e vil  would t hereby t urn the otherwise licit act-ofsav ing a  lif e-into an  il licitone .  It is  impor tantto  em p h asize t ha t t he  doctrineo f  do ubleef fect  does n ot tell us that an act ion is justif ied  jus t so  lo n ga s i ts goo d effects are int ended andit s  e vil or har m ful  e ffectsare uni ntend e d. If t his werethe subst an ce o f the  doctrine,  then th e doctrin e  woul d  a bsurd lyimplyth ata pes t exte r min atorwouldbe  justi fiedin  adminis tering poison that kill ed bot h rat s a nd childr en, pro vided onl y th at the kil lin g o f the  ra t s was  int e nd eda nd th e ki l ling of c h il dre n wa s unintende d . Con trary  to popula r mi sunderstandings,t he doctrine of  dou b l e e ffe c t is  n ot a doctrineabo ut w hich sor ts  of acts ar e automa ti c allyjustif ied. R ather,i t  i s  a doc trin e a bout whic h s or t s of ac ts  a r e notauto ma ticall y unju s tifi e d .3 More specific ally, i t isa  do ctrin ewhich t e llsus that no t all actsthat p rodu ce ev il or h ar mful c ons eq uences are automatic allyunjusti fi ed;anact wh ichp r oduce s ev il  or  harmfulc o ns e qu en c esmaybe ju st ifie d, provid e d (1) th att he evil  o r h a r mful c o ns e q uences are  no t int e n ded, and ( 2 ) th a tt hereis a p roperproport i ona li ty betw een t he good c onsequenc e s
 are_often faced_with this type of_balancing test._Oncologists_often and_justifiably_restore their patients_to health-an intended_good-by means of chemotherapy_which at the_same_time and unavoidably causes in these patients nausea and physical weakness-unintended evils. The chemotherapy_treatments_are justified,_however,_insofar_as there is a proper_at THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA,_pt. II-II,_Q.64, art. 7, at 1471 (Fathers of the_English_Dominican Province trans.,_1947). 32 Id. 3 Id. 34 Id. 272 CATHOLICS_IN POLITICAL LIFE proportionality between the_goodness of preserving_human_lifethe_directly intended good-and the_relatively minor and shortlived discomforts-unintended, though_foreseen, evils-caused by the treatment. By_contrast, the chemotherapy treatments would not be_justified if there were no such_proper proportionality. For example, if_saving a_life through chemotherapy caused not_only short-lived discomfort_in the_patient being saved_but also greater harms, such as_death, to several_others, then there would be no_proper_proportionality between the_intended_good_and the_unintended evils brought_about_by the_action._In such a case, the evil_of_certain effects-the death of several others, even_though not directly intended-would_outweigh_the good of the_directly intended good-the saving of_one life-and the evil would thereby_turn the_otherwise licit_act-of saving a life-into an illicit one. It is important to_emphasize that the doctrine of double_effect does not tell_us that_an_action is justified_just_so long_as its good effects are intended and_its evil_or harmful effects are unintended. If_this were the substance_of_the doctrine, then the doctrine would_absurdly imply that a pest exterminator_would be justified in administering_poison_that_killed both rats and children,_provided only that the killing of_the rats was_intended and the killing of children was_unintended._Contrary to popular misunderstandings, the doctrine_of_double effect is not a doctrine_about_which_sorts of acts are automatically_justified. Rather, it is a doctrine_about which sorts of acts are not automatically unjustified.3_More specifically, it_is a doctrine which tells_us_that_not all acts that produce evil or harmful consequences are_automatically unjustified;_an act which_produces evil or harmful consequences may be justified, provided (1)_that the evil or harmful consequences are_not intended, and (2) that there is a proper proportionality between_the good consequences