I'll agree with your last claim, although I think one should qualify "should", because it seems to imply an existing moral standard when, on some level, you're trying to define one.
I agree.
I'm not sure there's such a thing as altruistic hedonism -- at least not with the way I'm meaning to use the word hedonism. A hedonist does what maximizes his happiness. A purely altruistic action doesn't take into account the happiness of the doer.
...
Yeah -- although I don't really know what you mean by altruistic hedonism. Maybe you could clarify?
I prefer the term altruistic hedonism because, as well as helping others directly, it implies cultivating personal happiness in order to maximize the sum total of happiness. I propose that effectively helping others is rather difficult without first effectively helping oneself, and I follow by proposing that the highest quality of happiness arises independently from the external environment, e.g. being content. This is crucial if you take into consideration
Hedonic Calculus, and is even more-so relevant considering that you are external to every sentient being, with yourself as the only exception. I also find this analogy relevant:
Developing the mind depends upon a great many internal causes and conditions, much like a space station depends on the work of generations of scientists who have analyzed and tested even its smallest components. Neither a space station nor an enlightened mind can be realized in a single day. [...] However, unlike the space station, which is constructed by many people working together, the mind must be developed by you alone. There is no way for others to do the work and for you to reap the results. Reading someone else's blueprint of mental progress will not transfer its realizations to you. You have to develop them yourself.
Labels aside, I hope the concept has been sufficiently articulated.
TL;DR: What about intentions? They probably matter too.
The first two of Mill's examples seem to be extreme examples of practical occurrences. Intention and consequence go hand in hand with moral planning and moral judgement respectively; it is the same phenomena in different tenses of time. All one can do while attempting to accurately anticipate the consequences of one's actions is to infuse right intention with right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration, and then hope for the best. I propose wrong intention to be immoral planning, and any beneficial consequence to be irrelevant.
Mill's third example seems more realistic. I feel it's wrong to kill the one patient without his consent. It is his choice to live or not to live an altruistic life. No matter how selfless the intention, imposing our will upon others is rather arrogant and leaves plenty of room for moral confusion. I prefer the saying: "If possible, you should help others. If that is not possible, at least you should do no harm."
