Is his action right or wrong and why? Moral Dilemma?
In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. the drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from if." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.
Please list your age this is for a paper on Moral Development
thank you
Answers:
His action is noble and, therefore "right". There is no moral dilemma over his action. His action was that he tried his best to raise the money. His thoughts ("he considered breaking in") are understandable yet, neither right nor wrong. So far, there are no thought police.
Now, if he actually breaks in to the store, his actions will be legally wrong, but morally substantiated. He can always try to raise the money later to pay back the damages, but can never resurrect his dead wife. If he is willing to pay the consequences, then he will find that the break-in is the correct avenue. If he is unwilling to take the risk of incarceration, then he will be legally correct, but will be morally devastated. His regrets over not doing what he had to do to save his wife will run him down for the remainder of his life.
The big caveat in all this is that there is no guarantee that the drug will work. The doctors only thought it might save her. He may find that after breaking in, he still lost his wife and now, his freedom. The act of trying to save his wife may have cost him his last hours with her. Still, I think it would be a decision with which he could live comfortably, knowing that he did what he did as a sacrifice for someone he loved.
49
Niether right or wrong. It is an act of survival. I would have done the same thing.
Also, I am sure that there are fair market laws in Europe. Apply to those and he will get the medicine.
human beings are ends, not means - everything else is also a means. so notions of private property have to be subordinated to human good, in this case the good of Heinz's wife is more to be protected than the right to private property. 32
age 46 - this is hard cause first off the druggist is a jack azz! I can't imagine that someone would be so selfish. As far as Heinz breaking in to steal the medication - well it is wrong, but I don't blame him. Part of me thinks that I would try to steal it if it were one of my loved ones, and yet the other part of me says I wouldn't want to take that kind of chance.
Oh course you cannot justify stealing by any means.
But there's many things to take into account here:
The Druggist who is overcharging for the drug, in which people need to live. I think his behaviors are morally wrong.
AND
There is the devoted husband of the dying lady, who is determined to save (or attempt to save) his wife.
Maybe the Druggist got what he deserved for over pricing for the medication, and maybe the husband should have left the two thousand dollars so it wasn't completely morally wrong.
This is a very simplified situation. The reality is much more complicated with government regulations, law-suits, appeals, credit cards, etc.
The action of breaking in the store is wrong in a criminal sense, but not what you'd call 'a moral sense'. If I were writing this paper, I'd suggest other solutions (get a credit card, a loan, appeal to a regulatory agency, etc.). I'm in my 30s.
It is wrong to steal. If he got caught he still would not have the drug for his wife.
I think he should gather all the people together that gave him money and protest outside the pharmacy.
If they get people to shop somewhere else the drugist might be a little more generous. After all they would be taking away from him what means the most...money.
On a more passionate standpoint rights and wrongs aside perhaps if the protest did not work the husband and the aforementioned group could enter the said pharmacy and beat the druggist till he gave up the drug.
I am 33
Maybe you should try not stealing Carol Gilligan's work.
P.S. I'm more like Jake. ;-)
26,f,pa-USA
I see no moral dilemma in stealing the drug. But the guy stealing it should leave the $2,000 on the counter at the store.
36..It is both ethical and moraly wrong for wanting to break into to get the medication. But If i was in the same situation to save the life of my loved one I proobably would do anything and everything I could even stealing the medication. especally since the druggist wouldnt work with me even on payment plans. what the druggist did was both ethical and moraly wrong, wouldnt it be ironic if he could take the druggest to court and sue since he wouldnt sale him the drug and his wife died? Would that be moraly wrong? Two wrongs dont make a right. So your damned if you do and damned if you dont.
It's one of those dead end street questions, like when they check conscientious objectors (in mandatory draft armies like in Germany) and ask them what would you do if you see an enemy soldier entering your house and starting to rape your wife or daughter..
Taking serious your example - in which i guess the druggist stands for whoever (person or company) in the world acts similarly, I must say: Almost everybody overcharges, how to make a profit otherwise? Never a reason for committing a crime though! But that druggist should have taken a look at the hit list of the richest people, in Germany it's the Aldi brothers, world wide it's the Walton Bros. Discounters, Super Markets...
I think he should break in. His wife is dying and that is her only hope for salvation plus he tried every legal recourse to obtain the money. The druggist selfish and greedy who has no regards for life, he deserves to be taught a lesson. I'm 18.
I believe that the husband should have tried harder to raise the money for the medicine. If he broke into the store and stole the medicine he would have broken the law and still may not save his wife.
The pharmacist has done nothing morally wrong. He created a new drug, paid a large amount for the supplies to make it, then took time on an expensive process to make the end product.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: