The physician must first identify what is worth having for its own sake by stating what is intrinsically bad and what would value from each result, the hope is to yield the best balance. The problem is how do we add up the benefits/ harms when the action could result in so many different possibilities… how do we know that the patient is completely rational? The answer for the consequentialist is that if nearly everyone in society would accept it, and if society would be off with this rule than competing rule, it classifies as necessary. If the physician has done everything they can for the patient, including psychiatric help and other practices that continue to yield negative results, then at this point can the limb removal be taken into
The physician must first identify what is worth having for its own sake by stating what is intrinsically bad and what would value from each result, the hope is to yield the best balance. The problem is how do we add up the benefits/ harms when the action could result in so many different possibilities… how do we know that the patient is completely rational? The answer for the consequentialist is that if nearly everyone in society would accept it, and if society would be off with this rule than competing rule, it classifies as necessary. If the physician has done everything they can for the patient, including psychiatric help and other practices that continue to yield negative results, then at this point can the limb removal be taken into