You shouldn't be!
Read my paper, "Double Effect, Doing and Allowing and the Relaxed Consequentialist" (which was just published in Philosophical Explorations) explaining why.
Then read my book (Doing and allowing harm, OUP), realise that the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing at least has all been sorted out.
Many philosophers display relaxed scepticism about the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing (DDA) and the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE), suspecting, without great alarm, that one or both of these Doctrines is indefensible. This relaxed scepticism is misplaced. Anyone who aims to endorse a theory of right action with Nonconsequentialist implications (henceforth any Nonconsequentialist) should accept both the DDA (or a replacement) and the DDE (or a replacement). First, even to state a Nonconsequentialist theory requires drawing a distinction between respecting and promoting values. This cannot be done without accepting some deontological distinction. Second, if someone is going to accept any deontological distinction she should accept either the DDE or the DDA or some replacement. Finally, anyone who accepts either the DDE or the DDA should accept both doctrines or a replacement of each. Unless both Doctrines can be defended or given a defensible replacement, any Nonconsequentialist is in trouble.
Keywords: double effect, doing and allowing, nonconsequentialism, respecting versus promoting