Abstract
This article is a response to an article previously published in LJPC, which employed the doctrine of double effect to explain the Gillick judgement and exculpate health care workers who provide contraceptives and sexual health advice to under-16s. In this analysis, the two acts: provision of contraceptives and provision of sexual health advice are examined separately against the four criteria of the doctrine of double effect. In conclusion, whilst sexual health advice provision fits into the doctrine reasonably well, in the case of contraceptive provision, the validity of the doctrine of double effect is more doubtful.