Non Consequentialism In Nursing Case

In the case of Cassandra C, she is faced with a curable cancer, Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Without treatment this cancer is deadly, surely killing her if she does not seek said treatment. This is where the dilemma of the Cassandra C case begins, she deems the treatment, chemotherapy, as poisonous to the body and refuses to do the treatment. The court overrules her negligence and she is forced to undergo chemotherapy. With that said, I am going to give the correct course of action regarding the perspective of utilitarianism and how non-consequentialism fails in this specific case.
The first importance of the perspective of utilitarianism in the case of Cassandra is the legalistic aspect of it. If Cassandra were given the right to walk away

from state law via a subjective maturity evaluation then a precedent will be set legalistically and controversy will ensue. The uproar of a court’s decision to inadvertently send a minor to her death would be antithetical to the basis of utilitarianism, to produce the maximum good. Non-consequentialist theories fail in this regard is it’s inability to foresee the bad that could come from not taking action. In the legalistic aspect of the case it’s imperative that the outcome of a case can completely shape future cases, rendering non-consequentialism unjustifiable. Therefore, the supreme court was correct in their decision from a legalistic aspect.

The next part of the case covers more trivial matters in reference to morals.

One of the controversial elements of the case was the use of “inhumane” methods. When using a consequentialist theory it’s important to endorse that the ends justify the means. It’s also important to have a gauge of how inhumane the actions, because if too inhumane, then the ends are not justified. In strict regards to utilitarianism the measure of this is the maximum amount of happiness, if the means cause unhappiness greater than what the ends produce then it is considered too inhumane. To apply this to the case, Cassandra was not too inhumanely treated in that the result of her death would cause much more unhappiness to a general public and immediate family than the failure to acquiesce to her will. This contradicts the non-consequentialist in that it is inhumane not by a gauge, but it’s intrinsic value. The utilitarian theory is better in this case because rather than giving arbitrary intrinsic value, an indicative gauge is given in order to weigh whether inhumanity was justified. Inhumane measures are necessary when the judgement of a minor is clouded by fear of poison to her body, especially when the alternative is greater than the poison. This leads to another point of utilitarianism’s strength in this case. Cassandra was so irrational that she could not see that not only was the treatment going to produce the most happiness for everyone, but also for her as an individual. This throws non-consequentialist in a paradoxical circle as a difficult question resounds from this. Is it intrinsically good to let her pursue her wants, and realistically suffer a much more painful, strenuous death or is it intrinsically good to do what leads to intrinsic

good.
In conclusion I believe from the perspective of utilitarianism that the court was right in forcing Cassandra to adhere to the treatment. It was also further justified from a utilitarian view legalistically. I also believe that they were correct in using the methods deemed as “inhumane” in that they do not meet the utilitarian measure of what is deemed inhumane. So, overall I believe the case was handled in a respectable manner in regards to a utilitarian perspective