The utilitarian theory is applicable in this situation based on several factors. Firstly, it provides an opportunity to evaluate the morality of end of life medical support. Secondly, the value of end of life medical support can be evaluated by listing both the positive and negative outcomes of the issue. Allowing end of life care will give patients autonomy over their health. This is a good thing because everyone should have a viable alternative should the illness become too painful. In addition, they will enhance the management of resources. For example, the death of terminally ill patients will free up health care resources for other patients. However, the arguments made against the practice also offer some interesting and valid information on the issue. Firstly, it is believed that the practice will encourage individuals to commit suicide. Secondly, there is a possibility that doctors would recommend the practice as a means of saving resources. Thirdly, the life of any human being is sacred and should not be ended by their decision or through the decisions of other people.
A comparison of arguments presented by both parties reveal that the practice will do more good than harm. In addition, contingency measures can be taken to regulate the practice. For example, there should be laws that state the conditions under which it will be acceptable. In addition, the doctors should exercise due diligence and ensure that they give their patients sufficient information to enable them to make informed choices (Yadav, 2006). This may include telling them that exercising their power of self rule may work against their best interests (Savory & Marco, 2009). This places a lot of power on doctors who may have vested interests in seeing the patient choose End of Life Care Support.
The major strength of this theory is that it seeks to find the greatest ratio of good to evil. As a result, it supports the practice since it limits the drain of resources for