Question

Let me see if I understand you correctly, Mrs. Burgone said. I need a liver transplant, but I'm not allowed to have such an operation? That's correct, Dr. Popp said. The National Health policy stipulates that transplant surgery cannot be performed on patients over the age of seventy. Mrs. Burgone shook her head. But I don't expect National Health to pay for it. I'm able to pay for it myself. That doesn't matter. It's a matter of social policy, not medicine. The idea is that we can't afford, as a society, to do everything for every patient. You might be able to pay for such an operation, but not everybody can. Then society would have to pay for those who can't afford it, and society can't afford to do that. Consequently, to be fair, the operation is denied to everyone above the age of seventy. That doesn't seem fair to me, Mrs. Burgone said. "How can it be fair to condemn someone to pain and greater risk of death when a way of changing this is available?" If there is a national health care program that provides coverage for everyone should there be limitations placed on the availability of coverage based upon age? Would that be morally correct? How would someone respond to this question using the ethical principles of: rule utilitarian

Answer 1

If the operation is denied to everyone above seventy then it looks very unethical,but there should be systematic policy. Like below seventy cannot be denied unless or until there is another patient below seventy.

This rule can be beneficial for young generation because young people have enough time after operation. Although a young can handle the complications if occurred. But if you are above seventy there may be complications can arise. Which can make the further life more terrible after operation.

A rule utilitarian thinks, before acting, about the consequences of people following that rule. If the outcome is regarded as positive, she might decide that it's good to follow that rule in general, and will apply it in future.

An act utilitarian doesn't generalise the act, but regards it as a single action with a single outcome. She will have to weigh the possible consequences each and every time she acts.

Therefore, rule utilitarianism is considered to be more practicable, countering the anti-utilitarian argument that weighing each and every possible outcome each and every time is just not the way we want to (or can) spend our time.

On the other hand, act utilitarians consider rule utilitarians somewhat dull-witted, for a smart person might think of herself to be able to decide what to do without just applying rules time and time again. Also, blindly applying rules to specific situations can have unforeseen negative consequences that might have been averted by somebody who paid more attention instead of executing a programme.

At the same time, act utilitarians are criticised for their double standards, for they think it is useful if everybody follows "good" rules while they take for themselves the right to decide whether or not it is clever to stick to those rules in a specific situation.