As time passes, technology and medicine continue to evolve beyond their current limits . With the advancement of technology and medicine, individuals now have access to life-saving treatments and medications for disorders that once had no form of treatment. Certain disorders like this have complicated the search for effective treatment that is not limited by cost. An example of one such case is spinal muscular atrophy, which is a “genetic disorder characterized by weakness and atrophy (wasting) of the muscles used for movement” (US Library of Medicine, 2018). For years, spinal muscular atrophy went without effective treatment, leading to much suffering. In recent years, researchers have discovered a significant breakthrough in the form of a drug called Spinraza. Spinraza is a “prescription medication used to treat spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in pediatric and adult patients” (Spinraza, 2018). This scientific breakthrough could have an impact on the lives of many people. However, simply finding treatment is not the only problem to solve. With the discovery of effective drugs like Spinraza, the cost is astronomical. In the case of Spinraza, the drug can cost families up to $700,000 the first year of treatment and $300,000 each year after that. The cost of life-saving drugs such as Spinraza is likely to leave a hopeful recipient empty-handed. In response, the province of British Columbia decided to step in and cover the cost of these treatments through the use of public funds. In this article, we will explain why public funding of proven life-saving drugs such as Spinraza is acceptable and why it should be made mandatory from a utilitarian and ethical perspective. When making decisions of such importance, higher powers must consider the ethics and values ​​of using large sums of public funds to treat minority populations. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay By authorizing the use of public funds for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy, higher powers demonstrate the importance of ethics and values ​​of helping individuals in need. This is directly related to why utilitarianism advocates using public funds to provide for people with spinal muscular atrophy and other disorders. Utilitarianism is about valuing “the greatest good for the greatest number” (Holland, 2015), so a utilitarian would argue that government should value overall utility (“Concerning happiness, pleasure, and freedom from pain » (Holland, 2015).) of its citizens. By allocating these resources, the British Columbia provincial government is demonstrating that it believes in respect for ethics. It is important to consider that there is a drug in circulation that has the potential to save many lives if financial assistance is provided to those in need. This alone demonstrates the importance of why the theory of utilitarianism supports the idea of ​​using public funding to ensure the necessary distribution of medicines. Providing aid to those who would benefit would increase the overall pleasure of the parties involved, thereby satisfying the key goal of utilitarianism. If public funding is readily available to help others, then, according to the notionof rule utilitarianism, according to which the performed act is followed by a set of rules in which it produces the greatest utility (Holland, 2015), it is now a decision which clearly favors an option rather than 'another one. The options presented are to use available funds to save lives or leave them to suffer and potentially face death. It then becomes clear what is the most ethical option for the use of these public funds. Jeremy Bentham, philosopher and founder of utilitarianism (Holland, 2015), said that it is the labor of pain and pleasure "alone to indicate what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we ought to do" (Snyder , 2018). Following Bentham's example, the only ethical option is to allow the use of public funds to enable accessibility to expensive medications. Beyond the views of rule utilitarianism, act utilitarianism would also further support the funding of life-saving medicines through public funding. “The goal of act utilitarianism is to ensure that the full potential for utility is exploited with all the consequences that flow from it” (Holland, 2015). In 2014, the median family income in British Columbia was $76,770 (Statistics Canada, 2018). Using the example of Spinraza and its $700,000 financial commitment, we can see how the average family would be unable to financially support the use of life-saving medications. The utilitarianism of the law would support the idea of ​​allocating public funds to help families facing financial difficulties access life-saving medications. This would ensure benefit to those who had no other means of accessing these life-saving medications. Looking at each individual case of patients requiring a certain expensive drug, all would need the distribution of expensive drugs to actually meet their maximum utility. Placing this high value on the usefulness of all is the highest priority and the most ethical, because not providing any form of assistance in accessing life-saving medicines would be an immoral action. Comment from Harneet Sandhu: Rephrase this, it sounds weird. When deciding to use public funding to access treatments for specific disorders, an important question to ask is how the money provided will be used. In the case of life-saving medicines such as Spinraza, publicly funding the accessibility of what is needed becomes more of a duty than a choice. The idea that it is a duty is supported by Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics. Deontology is the ethical theory based on “the right or wrong of actions, rather than their consequences” (Holland, 2015). Deontology places high value on the ethics of morality and follows only morally right actions. According to this theory, refusal to allow public funds to be allocated to the provision of expensive drugs would be considered a morally wrong act. This central idea is why ethics respectfully defends public funding of expensive drugs. An ethical argument against not using public funds would be that it is a morally incorrect action because an individual is put in danger due to the decisions of others. Any decision that subjects others to distress is not morally correct, which is why ethics supports the idea of ​​public funding in this way. This is further supported by the principle of universality which involves acting only in accordance with a rule or action which would be a universal law without consequences (Holland, 2015). This is detailed by the concept of refusing to help someone even if the.