1. For the situation given by Problem 1, Annas would argue for Mr. Cox to receive his surgery. The Reason he would agree with this based on the circumstance of the two surgery candidates. Annas would argue that the process has to be fair in which case first come first serve is somewhat applicable assuming we are not measuring value of Mr. Cox to the Biology professor. Annas wants efficiency, fairness and a respect for the value of life. If we were to value life equally from the janitor to the university professor, then there is no issue with first come first serve. First come first serve will be very efficient and fair as it does not have to go through a committee and take time to decide who gets the treatment. Although the lack of committee puts some aspects overseen such as the overall reason for treatment and exceptional situations where someone goes before another in que, the committee also brings its own problems as people bring their own preferences and biases to the group as Annas even mentions about her methods. First come first serve provides enough randomness without having equality the only promoted value and seems to be the choice for Annas.
2. A- Rescher’s guideline does provide …show more content…
The main issue of figuring out if the infant can be a potential person according to Weir is the severity of the brain damage. Depending on the severity of the damage, the baby might have had a potential in a happy life and/or suffering of the infant. Weir’s standard without quoting the list itself looks at the potential life the infant can have and the price or issues the impairment brings to the child. If the child through development has a potential to become a person without a severe neurological impairment, then the child would count as a person but if they do not have the possibility to do so, then they are not considered a potential person. Personhood is an odd thing to talk about as this is what helps us draw the line between who counts and who does