Theories of distributive justice are most severely tested in the area of disability. Mark Stein argues that utilitarianism performs better than egalitarian theories in this area: egalitarian theories help the disabled either too little or too much, while utilitarianism achieves the proper balance by placing resources where they will do the most good. Stein critiques the work of egalitarian theorists John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, Amartya Sen, Bruce Ackerman, Martha Nussbaum, Norman Daniels, and others. He claims that egalitarians are often driven to borrow elements of utilitarianism in order to make their theories at all plausible. Stein concedes that both utilitarians and egalitarians face problems in the distribution of life-saving medical resources. He advocates a version of utilitarianism that would distribute life-saving resources based on life expectancy, not quality of life. Egalitarian theories ignore life expectancy and so are again found wanting.