Amidst the usual large number of opinion pieces of various weight, John Wiloughby – our PubMed reporter – found only one interesting article:“It caught my eye because it appeals to my prejudices – the rule of double effect can be viewed as a flimsy affair for more than the reason of ‘what did the medical team really intend – to relieve symptoms or to hasten death?’. It now appears that the philosophical distinction between ‘intended’ and ‘foreseen’ effects has been found wanting. Nice”. Find the abstract here.
