and it is applied to her own organism. Still the Doctor knows that the
prescription may indirectly bring about abortion. Can he prescribe the
drug or treatment from which he knows the death of the fœtus may
indirectly result, the direct purpose being to remove an ailment of the
mother's?

There is a sound moral principle bearing on such cases; it is
universally admitted in Ethics and Jurisprudence, and its application is
so extensive that it well deserves careful study. It is this: "He who
wilfully puts a cause is answerable for the effect of that cause,"
_causa causæ est causa causati_. Therefore, if the effect is evil, he is
answerable for that evil. This, however, supposes that he could foresee
the danger of such evil effect.

That evil effect is said to be _indirectly_ willed; for it follows from
a cause which is _directly_ willed. If, then, you should give a dose to
a pregnant mother which is intended to stop her fever or other ailment,
but may also bring on abortion, the stopping of her fever is directly
intended, and the abortion is said to be indirectly intended or willed.
Those are the received terms in moral science. It were more correct to
say that the abortion in this case is an effect not intended at all, but
only _permitted_. That, then, which is permitted to result from our
acts is said to be indirectly willed.

Are we then always responsible for evil effects permitted or indirectly
willed? The principle laid down seems to say so. But then that principle
admits of important exceptions. If we could never do an act from which
we know evil consequences may follow, then we could scarcely do anything
of importance; a young man could certainly not become a physician at
all, for he is almost certain to injure some of his patients in the