Double Effect: The Perfect Compromise Between Moral Theories

I understand how the principle of double effect could seem to be the perfect compromise between moral theories. For example, a theory such as utilitarianism allows for many bad moral actions to occur. For example, it may morally obligate you to murder if it causes the most amount of good or pleasure. This may go against someone’s belief’s, but utilitarianism would say that it is a necessary action that must be accomplished and therefore utilitarianism calls for many intended bad consequences. Other theories say that one must do no harm and do good. This means that one cannot do something that will cause harm just to carry out a good action. Double Effect allows for actions to be morally good even if they have bad, unintended consequences. These
However, I do not think the principle of double effect is perfect. One issue I have with it is that it still does not allow for cases such as euthanasia to be morally good. In my opinion allowing a person to end their life in order to end and prevent future, unavoidable, suffering should be morally good. I think that ending a person’s suffering if that is what they truly want to do, is the right thing to do. Double effect would still say that no matter how much the person wants to die, killing them or letting them die would be the means and that is considered a bad action so it is not morally right. However, I think it is wrong in this sense because I think it is more important to end the person’s suffering, even if that means allowing them to die. I understand that people believe this is a destruction of a basic good and therefore never okay, but I think allowing a person to suffer when they ask for relief is worse. As a nursing student, this is something I have already had to deal with. It is heartbreaking to sit with a 101-year-old woman as she begs for you to end her suffering and allow her to