Evolution of the Human Lifespan

In the care of patients with irredeemable conditions, some moral concerns are a fundamental part of their management and testing circumstances will require contemplation of the principle of double effect. Raus, Sterckx, and Mortie (2013) claim that the doctrine of double effect emphasizes that, if doing something ethical has a morally bad side effect then it is right to do it as long as the harmful side effect is not intentional. This is applicable even in instances where you have foreseen the adverse effects. The doctrine comes in defense of clinicians in the cases where they administer drugs to relieve patients' distress with the knowledge that this might shorten their lives (Overland, 2014). In this case, the doctor does not target to terminate the patient's life directly. If the patients die, that is just the bad effect of a good result that was to reduce the patient's death (Oderberg, 2010). This doctrine helps many doctors to justify the use of excess dossed of drugs such as morphine to relieve suffering on ill patients knowing that the drug can kill them sooner.

According to Dong, Milholland, and Vijg (2016), natural lifespan is the maximum number of years a person can live. Finch (2010) further asserts that natural lifespan is fixed biologically with the upper limit for humans estimated at 125 years. The concept of 'fair inning' is a justification that elderly patients should be denied treatment on the ground that their life is biologically limited and hence their ill health (Olsen, 2013). Fair innings looks attractive and appeals to fairness and support for the idea that health resources should be directed to the young. However, just as Mathes (2012) argues, the reasons for fair innings are not adequately persuasive in that there is no need to discriminate elderly patients in the name of fairness. There is need of better arguments for this cause.

References

Dong, X., Milholland, B. & Vijg, J., 2016. Evidence for a limit to human lifespan. Nature, 538(7624), p. 257.

Finch, C., 2010. Evolution of the human lifespan and diseases of aging: roles of infection, inflammation, and nutrition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(suppl 1), pp. 1718-1724.

Mathes, M., 2012. Health Care and the Aged: Arguing Equality in the Absence of a Right. TEMPLE POLITICAL & CIVIL RIGHTS LAW REVIEW, 21(2), p. 338.

Oderberg, D., 2010. The doctrine of double effect. A companion to the philosophy of action, pp. 324-330.

Olsen, J., 2013. Priority preferences:"end of life" does not matter, but total life does. Value in Health, 16(6), pp. 1063-1066.

Overland, G., 2014. Moral obstacles: An alternative to the doctrine of double effect.. Ethics, 124(3), pp. 481-506.

Raus, K., Sterckx, S. & Mortier, F., 2013. 11 Can the doctrine of double effect justify continuous deep sedation at the end of life?. Continuous Sedation at the End of Life: Ethical, Clinical and Legal Perspectives,, p. 177.