Heinz Moral Dilemma

[John Dibble]

Heinz should do what Heinz feels is the right thing to do, and he should accept the consequences of his choice. I really can't decide things for him.

Now, if I was in Heinz's position...

1. I would probably steal the drug. I'd leave the $2000 collected thus far, and pay the man back later with interest(even if I went to jail).

2. If I didn't love my wife, I wouldn't be married to her. So I doubt I'd steal the drug for her.

3. I wouldn't steal the drug for a stranger. My duty is to provide for myself and my loved ones first and foremost, and to do that I can't go on a crusade for every stranger I meet. If I did, I'd have to steal drugs for every sick stranger I met to be consistent.

4. I'll answer this even though I wouldn't steal it for a stranger. For a pet of mine, though loved, I'd just have it put down most likely. I don't value the life of non-sentient beings as highly as I do that of a humans.

5. If that person is important enough to them, then yes. Honestly though, one would have to be completely self-sacrificing in order to save every life they possibly can, and they just might get themselves killed in the process. Do what you can, and move on.

6. Yes it's against the law, and yes it's wrong from my personal moral standpoint to steal, but I'd do it anyways for someone I truly loved.

7. People should generally obey the law. For something like this, if they decide it's worth it to break it, they should accept the consequences. In cases where the law is tyrannical and totally unjust(this isn't one of them IMHO), people should just plain fight the law by whatever means are appropriate.

[John Dibble]

Another problem that universal health care would solve.

I could tell you why that's not necessarily true, but I don't want to turn this into an argument over healthcare - stay on topic and answer the damn question.

[John Dibble]

Heinz should go to the newspapers, television, and radio outlets, and tell them his story.

Under no circumstances should he steal the drug.  He should not break the law, or he would be prosecuted.   

The media would very soon reveal to the public that the pharmacist in question is a greedy, self serving individual, who cares nothing for human life, but only at ripping off the public with his exorbitant drug prices.  This could well cause this selfish and inconsiderate pharmacist to go out of business.  It could as well put him into a position where he would in fact release the drug to save the dying patient.       

All of which may take so much time that his wife may die before the pharmacist releases the drug. Plus, as long as there's people who need the drug bad enough and are willing and able to pay for it, I don't think he'll have a problem with the business.

[John Dibble]

But no slack for him when he gets killed or thrown in jail.

Why would someone be killed for violating laws against theft?

Different situation - he runs into the pharmacist while breaking into the store, who happens to be armed, and gets shot. He's not saying that he'd get executed by the authorities for it.

[John Dibble]

1.) Should Heinz steal the drug?  Why or why not?

- He should steal it for everyone, because right to live is more important than property right. It's unimportant if he loves a person or not, although not stealing it for a loved person is definitely more immoral.

So, he should steal it for everyone, eliminating the available supply that the pharmacist has to sell, putting the pharmacist in debt making him unable to purchase the materials needed to produce new medicine? Good plan.

[John Dibble]

So, he should steal it for everyone, eliminating the available supply that the pharmacist has to sell, putting the pharmacist in debt making him unable to purchase the materials needed to produce new medicine? Good plan.

It will not ruin the pharmacist if he steals one drug to help a dying stranger. Of course, everybody who's got the money to pay for the drug has to.

But you said he should steal it for everybody, which means that he has to steal enough for every single person who needs it. Assuming that the medicine can only be used on this one, ultra-rare cancer, sure, he'd only need one or two doses. However, given that someone took the trouble to research it, the medicine either has other uses or the cancer isn't so rare. In which case, by your logic, Heinz would be obligated to steal it for every stranger who needed it and couldn't afford it, which would probably take most if not all the supply of the drug.

Also, if people who can't afford it should get it for free through stealing, why should anyone have to pay for it?