The scenario shows a common case for a a doctor, and according to his education he could take an act utilitarian decision or a rule utilitarian one. Act utilitarian acts are those that are consider to be right if there is maximized utility, and a rule utilitarian acts are those that are more of an idealistic code.
Both of them are to be used in different decisions that are to be taken in life, ND depending on the decision taken there will be consequences. (Mason, 2000) According to the planted situation if the doctor chose to give the dose of the medicine to the artist he will be taking an act utilitarian decision, this is because he is the one that has shown some improvement in the past in theory he would have more opportunities of being saved if he took the medication.
Also, the doctor could take a decision based on the fact that he contributes with large sums of money to local charities, this will be also considered an act utilitarian decision because it is been oaken based on how much can be achieved by experimenting the drugs on him rather than on the teacher, who apparently doesn’t “give much” to the society. A rule utilitarian decision will be to give it to the teacher. She seems to be a lost cause because of how she entered the hospital.
But if the doctor was to take a decision based on her being the one who supports her family and being a school teacher who doesn’t have as many opportunities like the artist, he will be taking a rule utilitarian decision. The rule utilitarian decision may be more of a fantasy world because the coacher is described as a person with fewer opportunities in this case, so choosing her, will be to choose a case that is not likely to succeed, and not likely to give any fruits for the society. In an interview with F. Ramose, a doctor who works at an E. R. Agility I asked what decision was he and his colleagues more likely to take, and his answer came as not surprise for me, “we are educated to take the decision that benefits most people, in this case it will be to save the artist, because by saving him we will be giving an opportunity, not only to the artist but to the people he helps with is donations”. This is the education most of the people is given, and given the fact that doctors work with these types of decisions on everyday basis it is important to give a deeper analysis on how should this situations be handle and take into consideration other facts.
Maybe it is idealism to think about trying to save the teacher instead of saving the artist, but it is not Just about saving, it is about considering the whole situation. The artist has the opportunity of looking for alternatives because he has the financial means to do so, maybe with the commendation of the doctors he may be able to acquire the drug by other means, also in case he is not able to receive the experimental drug he can alternate with other treatments that may be expensive but then again he has the financial means to afford it.
The only chance the teacher has is if the doctors decide to try an experimental drug on her, she is the main support for her family, and the teacher salary is not likely to be sufficient to support a family and pay hospital bills, nevertheless look for an alternative cure for cancer, which leaves the teacher almost unprotected.
There will always be difficult decisions to make, these decisions should be based on many things, there will always be the most reasonable, and convenient option (act Unitarian), and also less feasible way to do things, reality is that balancing what is right and what is wrong is not easy, and many times is Just a matter of perspective.