Personally, I believe I am the right person to take the antidote because I know my potential. In a civilized society, I believe the end justified the means. If I take the antidote to save myself now so that I can prevent the same condition from affecting the whole society In future, I believe that end is nobler than the means. My main reason for thinking I am the right person to take the antidote is that I am young and have plans to do a degree in microbiology and molecular biology so that I can develop cures for diseases that may ravage the whole community. In my utilitarian thought, I think the course of action that can maximize the utility. I believe I can maximize the utility from the antidote by saving myself, working hard to produce more antidotes for all kinds of diseases that might affect my community in future.
In this case, I have considered the potentials of the people who stand a chance to take the antidote I have concluded that the cancer researcher may not develop the right antidote for the community. He is only specializing in cancer and not botulism. Offering the drug to the cancer researcher may mean diverting the community resources to a person who might not offer solution to the potential; problems in the com unity.
Additionaly, I think it is also important to note that the best selling author does not have any solution to the threat of botulism in the community. Offering the antidote to the author will not help in anyway. The fetus may save the community, but that will take too long before the community is killed. Considering the potential benefit of the senator, the senators may be the best alterative as he may help the community by articulating matter and seeking donation and support from the government. However, he is also compromised because the help will take long. This delay may lead to the death of the whole community.
The outspoken scientist has a lot of potential, but his research and contribution to climate change cannot solve the pending botulism problems facing the community. Even though his research in climate change and influence in the political arena may benefit the community with the problems of climate change, the community stands to lose when the early botulism comes again. It is important to focus on how to stop the current botulism menace and develop adequate antidote for future use. I believe his research on sustainable practices may be useful to the community in the end, but it misdirected. The main problem is botulism, which is caused by bacteria called Clostridium botulinum, therefore, the research need is to focus on how to limit or eliminate the threat. What the community need is botulism threat management. Bacteriologist who can develop the antidote and not a politician who make political policies on how to acquire antibiotics from the other communities. I believe that I am a member of the community who has the community at heart. If I survive the botulism poisoning, I can help the community by conducting research and availing adequate antidote because I have seen the illness kill a number of people.
With the above remarks and in consideration of the benefits the community stand to, gain from the other likely survivors, I believe it is better to consider one who can solve the community problem in future faced with the same illness as opposed to people who offer completely different services. It is wise to consider a sustainable solution to the problems as opposed to solving the problem without knowing if the solution is sustainable. What if botulism strikes again? Will the other survivors offer adequate antidote to the whole community. I do not think so. I am the only logical solution to the botulism problem