Question

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 produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 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 it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Answer 1

The question is about a moral dilemma involving theft and life-saving medication. Responses can vary, from upholding the law and decrying Heinz's actions as theft, to sympathizing with Heinz's desperate attempt to save his wife's life. Both views have valid reasoning, so the correct answer depends on one's personal ethics.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question focuses on a moral dilemma concerning a druggist, a man named Heinz, and his dying wife, who is on the brink of death from a special kind of cancer. When it comes down to whether Heinz should have stolen the drug, it depends on one's personal ethics and outlook on what's more significant: the sanctity of (moral/ethical) law or a human life.

One perspective is that Heinz should not have broken into the laboratory. Despite the desperation of his situation, it's still illegal and unethical to steal another's property. This could potentially lead to negative consequences such as jail time, which would ultimately leave his dying wife alone, as well as setting a precedent that it's okay to break the law in desperate situations.

On the contrary, another perspective might argue that Heinz's action was justified because he was doing it to save a human life, which holds higher precedence over maintaining law and order. Hence, the act of stealing becomes a lesser evil compared to letting his wife die due to an inability to afford the medication.

Learn more about Moral Dilemma