Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology in the Case of Patient with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

I do not have many details on my paper since the full paper is not due until 11/6, but I need my argumentative thesis statement by tomorrow. Please see the details attached

Writing papers in philosophy is how ideas and arguments are communicated. The paper for this class is an argumentative paper where you will clearly argue in favor of a position. Important: Your intended audience is someone who has never taken an ethics course before! 

The assignment: You will analyze how utilitarianism and Kantian deontology resolve a specific case. You must take a clear stance on which theory you feel offers the preferable solution to the dilemma in the case and offer an argument in favor of one theory over the other. Important to note: the case below is presented as it happened so you have as many details as possible. However, a utilitarian or a Kantian does not have to agree with what happened in the case. You want the paper to focus more on what a utilitarian or a Kantian would say should happen. It might be the case that one or both would agree with what happened and that’s ok! You just shouldn’t feel like a utilitarian or a Kantian would have to agree with what actually happened. 

The case: In 2014, 17-year-old Cassandra Callender was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a treatable form of immune cell cancer in the lymphatic system. In young adults and children with Cassandra’s condition, treatment with chemotherapy and radiation provides an 85% chance of long-term survival. Cassandra, however, objected to undergoing chemotherapy because she did not want “such toxic harmful drugs” in her body and wished instead to explore alternative treatments. She understood that, without chemotherapy, she would most likely die. But in Cassandra’s view, her decreased quality of life caused by the chemotherapy would not outweigh any length of life gain that the treatment would provide.While minors cannot make their own medical decisions in most cases, Cassandra’s parents agreed with her choice to refuse chemotherapy. However, courts have the authority to overrule parental decisions when those decisions threaten the life of a child. In doing so, courts temporarily remove parental custody and appoint a guardian to make medical decisions for the minor. In 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court, after consulting with medical professionals, ruled that Cassandra was to undergo chemotherapy against her will. This kind of treatment can require up to six months of intense treatment and care: In Cassandra’s case, she first went through surgery to have a port in her chest installed for drug administration. She was then confined to a hospital, with her cell phone taken away, often strapped to her bed and sedated. Physicians are morally required to avoid causing harm as well as to act in their patients’ best interests. Allowing Cassandra to decline chemotherapy would likely have resulted in her death, and therefore was not in her best interest. Cassandra appealed to the “mature minor” doctrine, which grants minors the authority to make their own medical decisions if the court deems they are mature enough to do so. This request was denied not because of concerns that Cassandra was too immature, but strictly on the advice of medical professionals. As a consequence, Cassandra was forced to endure chemotherapy.

APA Format, 1000-1500 words