What is an example of a consequence that might arise under the double-effect principle?

The double-effect principle is a moral and ethical framework that is often discussed in healthcare contexts, particularly concerning decisions that may lead to both good and bad outcomes. The principle acknowledges that it is possible for an action to have two effects: one intended and positive, and another unintended and negative. In this context, the correct choice highlights the idea that an action may result in both an intended beneficial outcome and an unintended harmful consequence.

For instance, in the realm of palliative care, a healthcare provider might administer a high dose of pain relief medication to alleviate a patient's suffering. While the intended effect is to relieve pain, there may be an unintended consequence such as respiratory depression that could potentially hasten the patient's death. The double-effect principle justifies the action because the intention was to relieve suffering, not to cause harm.

In contrast, the other options do not accurately reflect the concept of the double-effect. A successful business initiative does not inherently involve moral dilemmas related to good and bad outcomes arising from a single action. A negotiation that benefits both parties is more straightforward and lacks the ethical complexity associated with the double-effect principle. A decision that leads to no repercussions also does not engage with the moral considerations that the principle addresses, as there are no outcomes—int