Question

Utilitarianism Utilitarianism proposes a "felicific calculus'; an attempt to quantify the ambiguous nature of utility (ie. pleasure/happiness). This felicific calculus is a form of calculation, to decide whether an act is good or bad depending on the net happiness resulting from it. Apply it to the case of an 11 year old boy struck by a truck who will surely die without a blood transfusion. Since the boy is a minor (under 16 years of age) and deemed incompetent by the physician, his parents must make treatment decisions for him. There is no access to synthetic or artificial blood-borne components. The parents explain that if he receives the transfusion, it is in their belief system that he will go to hell for eternity. If by ignoring the parents' wishes and treating the child would sentence him to an eternal hell in the eyes of his parents can it still be considered ethical? If the State is able to make these decisions on behalf of patients of a certain religion, then this is not resulting in the greater good for the minority, and can result in the prejudice and oppression of a small community for the sake of the greater population. If the parents' wishes are adhered to and the child is allowed to die, could this also be considered right in utilitarianism? How do you calculate risk and benefit from a utilitarian perspective? Should it apply?

Answer 1

Utilitarianism theory focuses on the moral act of the right or wrong thing. This theory makes the opportunity of obtaining maximum utility and happiness of the patient and reduces the harm. The morality of the action should produce maximum benefit for the patient rather than harm. In the Utilitarian view, Morality action should balance between the benefit and risk of the individual. So the ethical principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence should be related before taking the final decision. In the above scenario, a Blood transfusion will benefit the patient when looked under the principle of beneficence. On the other hand, transfusing blood against the parent's refusal will result in harm to the boy. So according to the principle of non-maleficence, the physician should avoid the harm to the patient. If the blood transfusion is done, and if the boy condition becomes worsen then the religious belief becomes to play the critical part. This increase the chance of isolation of boy by the parents and relatives. The boy will go into the depressed state. Following patient wishes, lead to deterioration of health. So the only way is the parent intention has to be thwarted for the better care of the patient.