Stop! You violated the law!

[Amnestic]

How morally developed is the Escapist? Inquiring minds want to know. "Minds" meaning "Me." and "The Escapist" meaning "You guys".

"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 $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 know to borrow the money, but he could only get together $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 am going to make money from it,? So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man?s store to steal the drug for his wife."

(Kohlberg, 1969)

Was Heinz right to steal the drug? Justify your answer. Not expecting any essays or anything, but a paragraph explaining how you came to your conclusion would be nice.

There is no wrong answer [footnote]Unless you disagree with me[/footnote]

On an amusing sidenote, listening to your lecturer who has clearly never played a video game, nevermind a violent one, in her life talk about them is kinda funny, in a sad way. She seemed very shocked that you could just walk around murdering civilians in GTA, and that the controversy had been rife "ever since the first one."

Spoiler: Pay the fine.

 

[omega 616]

It is hard to agree with you, we don't know what your opinion is.

I would have done the exact same thing, except I wouldn't have tried to get the money together first. I would have got $200 and left it were the missing drug was.

This doc, sentenced a person to death over an insane mark up, apparently this guy has put a price on life and demands the cash up front.

As if my loathing for humanity wasn't great enough.

 

[SimuLord]

I'm a business major, ardent capitalist, and social Darwinist. No prizes for guessing my answer, so save me the typing.

 

[x0ny]

Yeah it was wrong, people will go to great lengths to save a loved one. But the pharmacist was a bit of an asshole, he could've been more reasonable and have the guy pay with monthly payments after a credit check of course.

 

[HuntrRose]

Life or death situation. No question. I'd do the same thing. Try reason, if fail, then rob the bugger. Leave 200$ for him to resupply (if even that)

 

[Sir_Tor]

Yes life > money
I would probably do the same thing

 

[GreyEarth]

Yeah, I'd have done the same thing too.
Stealing and doing jail time is a perfectly reasonable price to pay if it means saving a loved one.

 

[Flight]

I would have stolen it. That druggist is in the wrong there.

 

[DigitalSushi]

A jury would have a difficult time putting stealing as a more heinous crime than letting someone die.

Surely if the Biochemist knew that the woman would die if she did not have access to that wonder drug then thats Murder by Proxy?.

 

[bluemistake2]

I'm a business major, ardent capitalist, and social Darwinist. No prizes for guessing my answer, so save me the typing.

ha-HA! my uncle outranks you hes a liutenant major

 

[fix-the-spade]

Legally, it's theft, the husband did wrong and that's an end of it.

Personally, I can understand entirely why he would do that. He doesn't want his wife to die and he can't afford to buy the drugs legally, somethng as arbitrary as money and the law probably looks irrelevant next to the life of someone you love.

 

[Amnestic]

druglord

"Druggist" is probably closer to "pharmaceutical company" than "druglord"

Should have clarified.

 

[YouCallMeNighthawk]

Well i'm not going to say it's right as it is a criminal act, but on the switch hand i don't blame him, love can make men do things they would not normally do and in this case i feel for him and am not going to pass judgement on him as it was for a worthy cause his wifes life.

 

[Colour Scientist]

He was definitely justified. Perhaps not in the eye of the law but morally I think he was right. I can see that the druggist wants to make money from his creation but it was a life involved.

 

[Therumancer]

It's a complicated issue simply because once you start giving something like that away to anyone who needs it, you are not going to be able to make a profit off of it. Basically your going to get an endless parade of people, and it won't get any easier.

It's also a touchy subject because your dealing with what amounts to a "quack cure" basically something that isn't accepted to have any benefits (in the context of what is being said). Thus the normal methods of doing things do not apply. Insurance, etc.. won't cover something like that. Nor will public medicine (hospitals that receive donations from the goverment to operate are required to treat anyone in the ER and such).

In general I can understand his desperation but I can neither approve of him, nor the person who was selling an under the table "cure" that way.

When it comes to a larger scale, the issue normally revolves around a major drug company like say a Pfizers, or a Merck sinking millions or billions of dollars into research to cure a disease, and then wanting to make a profit off of it. This becomes an issue when they file a parent and you have third world nations rife with whatever it is, not wanting to pay the costs (or being unable to, though the former is more likely). Leading to issues like knock offs and the like by nations and "rogue companies" who will simply analyze and produce something and then charge whatever the market will bear simply because it's pure gravy for them never having to invest in the research.

Also to clarify, when I say Third World countries are in many cases unwilling to pay, you'll find that a lot of them *DO* have resources and substantial ones. African diamond mines and minerals (which people complain about being strip mined) are key examples. The problem of course being that you deal with a very powerful elite at the top (cartels, warlords) running the goverment, and a lot of people who live in abject poverty. In such cases I feel that your fundementally dealing with an internal matter. Outside pressures like not being able to afford drugs despite all the wealth, might eventually lead to social change. Basically if people get desperate enough no Warlord or Cartel is going to be able to stop a revolution in a nation where the peasants outnumber their men thousands to one. It's just that none of the people want to risk THEIR lives in a revolution yet or force a goverment that isn't another warlord or whatever. Basically even unarmed if you swamp a tiny minority of people they WILL run out of bombs and bullets before the popular revolt runs out of bodies.

Kind of rambling and off topic, but the basic point is that when your dealing with a nation ravaged by a disease for which you have a cure, that has a fortune in diamonds, minerals, timber, or whatever, it's hard to hold much sympathy when they demand it for free, no matter what the internal reasons are. That goverment that is making massive tracts of cash off of the diamond trade or whatever *COULD* pay, if they choose not to... well that's an issue. It's also why patent violations are such an issue because if someone did all of the research and invented the drug, nations like that waiting for say a Chinese knock off basically makes a mockery out of your work and what you spent.

Of course I'll possibly regret this one day if I ever become truely desperate. I'm not right now, but I see a real possibility. Still even acknowleging that I still have my principles.

 

[Kollega]

However you try, you cannot put a price tag on someone's life. "Justified" dosen't even begin to describe it.

I, personally, am convinced that morality > official law.

 

[Angerwing]

There is morally no question for me whether or not that was right. If I were Heinz I would've left $200 dollars there though, to cover the costs.

 

[Super_Nintendo_Chalmers]

Completely justified.
He would've been able to recreate the drug anyway, in theory atleast.

 

[Woodscare]

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 know to borrow the money, but he could only get together $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 am going to make money from it,? quote]


Even if he sold it for $1000, he is making $800. That is a very nice profit and you get a shot at saving a life. He also said he could pay the other half when he got the money

 

[Samurai Goomba]

With those stakes I wouldn't have blamed the guy for murdering the druggist and stealing the medicine.

So yeah, I think he was justified. Keep in mind the druggist turned down an 800 dollar profit AND the chance to save a life, just to try and wring an extra 1000 dollars of pure profit from a poor man having one of the worst days of his life.