Needle Exchange and Double Effect Doctrine

Volunteering to give people who inject drugs a clean needle to do so with is not the most logical thing according to some people. Most would have their fist instinct be to take away anything that might promote the use of inject-able drugs. HIV Alliance in Eugene, Oregon has created a needle exchange program that I will be directly tying into the doctrine of the double effect. Instead of using this doctrine to look at the matter of increased death alone, I will also be using it to look at increased harms.


The goal of the needle exchange program at HIV Alliance is to reduce the spread of HIV through people who inject drugs and their partners. This means for every used needle a person brings in they get one unused needle. The first question someone might ask is, " is this program promoting the use of inject-able drugs in the community?" Also, "What if the access to so many unused needles leads to more people who inject drugs dying, or more people injecting drugs altogether?" The main point here is that these things may be possibilities but are in no way the direct  intention of the program.


According to the doctrine of the double effect as explained by Philippa Foot, the needle exchange program at HIV Alliance applies perfectly to the double effect. The intention of HIV Alliance's program is to stop the spread of HIV, not to kill people who inject drugs, the other effects would be found completely unfortunate and unintentional.  


 This idea is a bit different than that of abortion. This is why I will bring up another one of Foot's examples. "Direct" and "oblique" intention are two things that are key in determining whether or not the needle exchange program would be rejected by the double effect. Direct intention would be if grave diggers purposely sold piousness oil to people in order to create more deaths. Death of more people would be intentional in this case. On the other hand their are merchants that are also selling this same piousness oil, while they may not intend to kill people they know that people will die if they use it. The merchants in this case would still be held accountable for the same accusations as the gravediggers making their intent "oblique," but they are none the less guilty.


My argument is that HIV Alliance's program is unlike the gravediggers and the merchants. They do not know for a fact that trading used needles for unused needle would lead to the deaths of people who inject drugs. It is only a possibility which makes the intentions of HIV Alliance neither direct or oblique. It is accepted under the doctrine.