Among these three ethical theories, deontology provides the best response because it treats patients as autonomous ends who have the right to make end-of-life decisions, but it avoids the slippery slope of justifying suicide and considers rules that should guide moral end-of-life decisions.
Rule utilitarianism argues that people have a right to end-of-life decisions if it offers the greatest net good for the majority. Rule utilitarianism evaluates end-of-life decisions through assessing the kinds of acts involved and the emphasis on the act that results to the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Mosser, 2013, p. 6.1). First, it considers that being able to decide one’s death is good if it saves resources because the health care system is already burdened with high costs due to limited medical and human resources (ForaTv, 2010). Second, rule utilitarianism adds the happiness of the patient to the total net good of the majority if he/she volunteers to end his/her life with respect to insufficient health care resources for the public. His/her happiness becomes part of the total happiness of more people. Rule utilitarianism values the net good and happiness that end-of-life decisions can provide to society.
The strengths of rule utilitarianism in answering the question are that it considers the effect of end-of-life options to the good of the majority, which is essential in a society with limited and expensive health care resources, and that it does not treat these options as taboo because they can also contribute to net good and happiness. First, rule utilitarianism gives importance to the reality of limited and costly health care resources. It allows stakeholders to find public benefits in sacrificing human life. Second, it removes negative conceptions that see euthanasia as immoral because, if it can produce