Aplikácia tomistického princípu dvojitého účinku na hraničné bioetické situácie

Abstract

Catholic moral argumentation in favour of absolute prohibition of all types of direct (intentional) abortions is vulnerable in one point, i.e. in case of therapeutic abortions. It is based on the identification of all direct abortions with a direct killing, which the author deems a wrong presupposition based on faulty analysis of an intention of action and distinction between the intention and the side-effect. Following the line of argumentation of New Natural Law Theory, this paper tries to propose modified conservative natural law position in which not all direct abortions are automatically identified with direct killing (although it admits the majority of non-therapeutic abortions involve direct killing). It criticizes the G. E. M. Anscombe?s (and D. Černý?s) objection of closeness of result or immediate result as unsound and her analysis of an example of stuck pot-holer as analogy to craniotomy. The paper presents the author?s own analysis of the stuck pot-holer example and craniotomy based on the argumentation of New Natural Lawyers, particularly of G. Grisez, J. Finnis and J. Boyle (with conviction the analysis is formally in line with conception of intention and doube-effect of Catholic moral tradition including Aquinas and encyclical Veritatis Splendor). Subsequently after the consultation with specialist, gynecologist-obstetrician, it generalizes the conclusion to all therapeutic abortions of vital-conflict type.