Which ethical principle justifies providing pain relief that may hasten death as a secondary effect?

• A. Slippery Slope
• B. Palliative Care
• C. Double Effect
• D. Do Not Resuscitate (DNR)

Answer: (C)

The main concept here is the principle of double effect. It allows giving pain relief that may hasten death when the physician’s intention is to relieve suffering, and the death is a foreseen but unintended side effect.

Key ideas to see why this is correct: the action itself—the treatment to ease pain—is aimed at a good end. The potential death that might result is not the goal and should not be used as the means to achieve relief. There are typically four conditions: (1) the act itself must be morally neutral or good; (2) the good effect must come directly from the act; (3) the bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved; and (4) there must be a proportionate reason to permit the risk of the bad effect, with the relief of suffering weighing heavily in the balance.

In practical terms, providing a high dose of pain relief to a dying patient can shorten life, but if the clinician’s intent is to relieve pain and suffering, and the death is not the intended outcome, the act can be ethically justified under this principle. The other options don’t capture this specific ethical justification: slippery slope is about potential progression to worse outcomes, not the justification for a pain-relief measure; palliative care describes the field focused on comfort but isn’t the rule itself; DNR concerns whether resuscitation would be performed, not the permissibility of using pain relief with a possible life-shortening effect.