The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
Many cases can be marshaled in support of the ethical principle that scarce health care resources should be allocated in such a way that they do the most good. Consider just these few:
-Two people have dangerous bacterial infections, but the hospital has only a single course of a single antibiotic: penicillin. Patient A is not allergic to penicillin, and patient B is.
-Two patients face imminent death from blood loss. There is only enough whole blood available to treat one of them. Patient A will likely recover fully after the transfusion. Patient B will almost certainly die within hours from multiple organ damage, whether or not he gets the transfusion.
-An EMT is called to the site of an accident. There are two casualties, both gravely injured: patient A is a 19-year-old woman and patient B is a 97-year-old woman. The EMT must pick one to treat first and the other is likely to die.
-In all these cases, it is Patient A who should receive the treatment. Why?
It isn't because Patient A is the first in line, or has the best insurance, or is the youngest, or is the sickest. In all these cases, Patient A should receive the treatment because scarce resources should be allocated in such a way that they do the most good.
Donated livers are every bit as scarce as the resources in the fanciful examples. Livers, then, should be allocated in such a way that they do the most good. Recovering alcoholics, obviously, are at greater risk than non-alcoholics of relapsing into alcoholism. They are thus at greater risk of destroying scarce livers. Transplanting those livers to non-alcoholics would thus do more good. That's why non-alcoholics should be moved ahead of recovering alcoholics on wait-lists for liver transplants.

Question

The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
Many cases can be marshaled in support of the ethical principle that scarce health care resources should be allocated in such a way that they do the most good. Consider just these few:
-Two people have dangerous bacterial infections, but the hospital has only a single course of a single antibiotic: penicillin. Patient A is not allergic to penicillin, and patient B is.
-Two patients face imminent death from blood loss. There is only enough whole blood available to treat one of them. Patient A will likely recover fully after the transfusion. Patient B will almost certainly die within hours from multiple organ damage, whether or not he gets the transfusion.
-An EMT is called to the site of an accident. There are two casualties, both gravely injured: patient A is a 19-year-old woman and patient B is a 97-year-old woman. The EMT must pick one to treat first and the other is likely to die.
-In all these cases, it is Patient A who should receive the treatment. Why?
 It isn't because Patient A is the first in line, or has the best insurance, or is the youngest, or is the sickest. In all these cases, Patient A should receive the treatment because scarce resources should be allocated in such a way that they do the most good.
Donated livers are every bit as scarce as the resources in the fanciful examples. Livers, then, should be allocated in such a way that they do the most good. Recovering alcoholics, obviously, are at greater risk than non-alcoholics of relapsing into alcoholism. They are thus at greater risk of destroying scarce livers. Transplanting those livers to non-alcoholics would thus do more good. That's why non-alcoholics should be moved ahead of recovering alcoholics on wait-lists for liver transplants.

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of The passage below makes a moral IBE. In the space provided, represent the argument in standard form clearly and precisely, being sure to provide both the Principle Justification and Principle Application sub-arguments.
The passage:
Many cases can be marshaled in support of the ethical principle that scarce health care resources should be allocated in such a way that they do the most good. Consider just these few:
-Two people have dangerous bacterial infections, but the hospital has only a single course of a single antibiotic: penicillin. Patient A is not allergic to penicillin, and patient B is.
-Two patients face imminent death from blood loss. There is only enough whole blood available to treat one of them. Patient A will likely recover fully after the transfusion. Patient B will almost certainly die within hours from multiple organ damage, whether or not he gets the transfusion.
-An EMT is called to the site of an accident. There are two casualties, both gravely injured: patient A is a 19-year-old woman and patient B is a 97-year-old woman. The EMT must pick one to treat first and the other is likely to die.
-In all these cases, it is Patient A who should receive the treatment. Why?
 It isn't because Patient A is the first in line, or has the best insurance, or is the youngest, or is the sickest. In all these cases, Patient A should receive the treatment because scarce resources should be allocated in such a way that they do the most good.
Donated livers are every bit as scarce as the resources in the fanciful examples. Livers, then, should be allocated in such a way that they do the most good. Recovering alcoholics, obviously, are at greater risk than non-alcoholics of relapsing into alcoholism. They are thus at greater risk of destroying scarce livers. Transplanting those livers to non-alcoholics would thus do more good. That's why non-alcoholics should be moved ahead of recovering alcoholics on wait-lists for liver transplants.

The Passage Below Makes a Moral IBE