1. Suppose that a pituitary extract is in very, very short supply relative to demand and is therefore very expensive. A poor family has a child who will be a dwarf if he does not get some of the extract, but the family cannot afford to pay for the extract. Indeed, the family could not afford to pay for the extract even if it could borrow against the child's future earnings as a person of normal height, since those earnings net of consumption are still less than the price of the extract. A rich family has a child who will grow to normal height, but the extract will add a few more inches to his height (enabling him to be better at sports, etc.). The rich family decides to buy it for him.[1] From the law and economics perspective, who should receive the pituitary extract: the poor family or the rich one? Critique the law and economics perspective from a distinctly evangelical Christian worldview perspective.