(1) Life expectancy has an eminent position in Stein’s paper: we should maximize
ID: 3462127 • Letter: #
Question
(1) Life expectancy has an eminent position in Stein’s paper: we should maximize life years in distributing medical resources. Now, should the years one has lived be relevant to those decisions in addition to the years one is yet to live? Explain your reason. (Be sensitive to possible objections.)
(2) It seems generally right to prioritize saving a person who has twenty more years to live over a person who has one more year to live. In cases of genetic enhancement, is it still right to prioritize saving a genetically enhanced person who has, for example, 120 more years to live over a normal young adult? Why? ( Note that this is a completely open question.)
Explanation / Answer
1. Yes, the years one has lived should definitely be relevant to those decisions in addition to the years one is yet to live. This is because everybody has a right to decide whether they want to live in that situation. This is more of a psychological decision that lets the person decide if he will be happy in his forthcoming years. If he feels he won't be, and doesn't want to prolong his life, then he shouldn't be forced to do it.
2. No it is not right to prioritize who has to live and who should not. To the besst possible effort, equal preference should be given to both - a person who has more years to live and a person who has lesser years to live. And it also depends on the will of the person. A person with longer life span might not be willing to live but a person with shorter lifespan might be willing to live. In any case, priority should be given equally.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.