What do you think Heinz should do?

[Sun Flash]

Plus wouldn't Mr Pharmacist want to make sure the drug worked before he tried to make a profit?

It's a psychological theory that holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable stages. It's more about the "Why do you believe that it is justifiable for Heinz to steal/not steal the medicine to save his dying wife." and the form of the response rather than the participants personal view of what Heinz should do.

It's meant for deeper understanding rather than making a believable story.

Oh I know, that's why I am firmly on Team Heinz for this one, seeing as the druggist is acting morally reprehensible. Leave the existing money by all means.

Essentially I hate the druggist, he's acting like a dick. And a stupid dick at that.

 

[Aethren]

First off, I'd start by making better ketchup.

That stuff is crap in a bottle.

Secondly, hell yeah I'd steal it, leave the money, cure my wife, then turn myself in. She gets better, I get out in 2-5 spent in a low-sec facility probably more comfortable than my own home, and we all live happily ever after.

Chemist gets 500% profits, I keep my wife, the end.

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

Oh I know, that's why I am firmly on Team Heinz for this one, seeing as the druggist is acting morally reprehensible. Leave the existing money by all means.

Essentially I hate the druggist, he's acting like a dick. And a stupid dick at that.

Ah but the druggist is a person too, all the time spent on R&D, all of the invested time and money into production techniques, and enough testing to be represented as a possible cure to the cancer in humans which adjusting the story to current pre-clinical trial procedure and you have something that has only been recently invented.

In the beginning all inventions are expensive but here's the big kicker out of the story, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." That one statement is meant to infer a prejudiced line of thought to those that pick up on it. Taken alone it is out of context and shows no allusion to intentions or decisions save the one fact that he made the medicine, medicine saves lives. Even if Heinz didnt steal it the medicine would go to someone who needs it just as bad.

At the base no-one is ethically or morally wrong in the dilemma which is the reason it is meant to go with the stages of moral development.

 

[GuideBot]

Of course he was in the right. Hell, if it was up to me, the man refusing to sell him should be charged with involuntary manslaugther.

Thereby imposing criminal liability on everyone who does not agree to sell at a substantially discounted (50%) price substances that might help prolong someone's life? This is probably quite a narrow interpretation of the ratio if such a case were to pass.

There goes the pharmaceutical industry.

Sorry, but it's just not that simple. I can see on the facts that it seems harsh and yes, the druggist appears to have been behaving very unsympathetically, but that the law is the way it is for important reasons.

The law has also long been cautious to impose liability for omissions and passive acts (like declining to accept the proposal of Mr. Heinz to do business on the terms offered) in both crime and tort.

I don't mean to sound too heavy or anything, it's just that sometimes people tend to bandy about with the law seemingly without the understanding or appreciation of why it is the way it is, and I often feel compelled to defend it.

OT: Mr Heinz did what any man in his situation would have done.

 

[Nightvalien]

use the james sunderland method.

 

[awesomeClaw]

Of course he was in the right. Hell, if it was up to me, the man refusing to sell him should be charged with involuntary manslaugther.

Thereby imposing criminal liability on everyone who does not agree to sell at a substantially discounted (50%) price substances that might help prolong someone's life? This is probably quite a narrow interpretation of the ratio if such a case were to pass.

There goes the pharmaceutical industry.

Sorry, but it's just not that simple. I can see on the facts that it seems harsh and yes, the druggist appears to have been behaving very unsympathetically, but that the law is the way it is for important reasons.

The law has also long been cautious to impose liability for omissions and passive acts (like declining to accept the proposal of Mr. Heinz to do business on the terms offered) in both crime and tort.

I don't mean to sound too heavy or anything, it's just that sometimes people tend to bandy about with the law seemingly without the understanding or appreciation of why it is the way it is, and I often feel compelled to defend it.

OT: Mr Heinz did what any man in his situation would have done.

Yeah, I kind of understand. Well, that´s why I´m a socialist. By the way, didn´t the man who invented penicillin release it for free, saving millions of lives. You know, instead of being a complete and total dick that deserves to be kicked in the balls? Also, this comic seems appropriate:

http://satwcomic.com/healthcare

 

[Rhymenoceros]

I believe that although it was technically wrong to break in and steal it, what the pharmacist was charging was next to extortionate. I think the best course of action for Heinz to take would be to break in, take the drug, leave a note admitting it was him and a promise to payback the rest. Then, change his mind about owning up, burn down the shop to hide all evidence and kill the pharmacist after torturing him to find out how to produce the medicine so he can a)keep his wife alive and b)sell it for more than the pharmacist was charging.

 

[Wintermoot]

it,s that or my wife dying
besides I offered him 5 times the price of the radium and that,s the highest I could go.
I might follow it up by burning his house down to hide the evidence or turn myself in after my wife is cured.

 

[Craorach]

Firstly I would attempt all methods of getting the drug legally. Credit, loans, bargaining, everything.. after that, I would absolutely steal to save my wife's life. I'd do alot of far worse things as well.

However, I would leave the money I did have available with an IOU. I would also get medical and personal witnesses to state that if I did not do it my wife would die, and that I had attempted a reasonable compromise with the druggist. I would also rope friends into a letterwriting campaign to media, politicians, activities and doctors to promote my cause. I would make it so that not only would the druggist suffer major PR loss due to the situation especially if I was convicted and jailed.

I would also use the situation to question why, exactly, the society I was living in and its government would allow someone to die of a cureable disease just because they couldn't afford the drug.

 

[Mistermixmaster]

At first I thought this topic was going to be about Ketchup (y'know, because of the name "Heinz")... I'm somewhat disappointed.

Anyhow, I can see why Heinz would steal the drug (hell, I know I would have). The druggist that discovered this was a bit of a bastard for not agreeing to be paid half the price then and the second half later on seeing how half the price is still 5 times what it costs to make the drug...

Well, since I'm supposed to put myself in Heinz' shoes for this morality question, here's what I'd do. I'd break in and steal the drug, but leave the money I have behind, then later on pay back the rest of the half that the drug costs. Maybe even leave an anonymous note soaked in gasoline (no fingerprints) saying that I'll pay the rest as soon as I can. However, if I'm the only one who's asked for the drug I'm in a shit position to start with...

 

[rokkolpo]

Yeah I'd steal the drug.
Failing that I'd kill the druggist.

It's my wife goddamnit!

 

[Frybird]

A morality & Ethics test created by Lawrence Kohlberg

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 store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

what do you think that Heinz should do in this situation? Before you answer, put this is in a first person perspective, imagine you are Heinz, then answer.

I'd beat that greedy druggist with a metal pole until he sells me the stuff for $1000

How's that for Morale Evaluation? ^^. (EDIT: Not very unique, it seems)

But honestly, yeah, I'd steal it. I'd easily forgive myself for stealing, but never for NOT stealing the cure.
But i guess i wouldn't beat up the druggist...unless i botch the theft and he stands in my way.

 

[John the Gamer]

This was a psychological test done by some professor; one carol gilligan

Boys and girls around 6 years of age are asked this: Wife is mortally ill, Husband does not have enough money for medicine, should he: steal them yes or no?

Boys: either yes, because it is the best thing to do or no, because stealing is bad.

Girls: Talk with the druggist, get a loan and pay in installments. (ie: completely different)

This was meant to show the difference between the boys and girls. Men are more to-the-point, whilst women seek for answers that were no option in the first place(it was yes or no, no other answers were possible)

EDIT: Btw, I'd go with yes; steal them. Fuck that greedy bastard.

 

[fenrizz]

Yes, and he should have stolen the "recipe" too.

Healthcare should be free for everyone.

Denying someone lifesaving drugs because of profit is just evil.

 

[Korolev]

It's a tricky situation.

Modern medical drugs are expensive, because the research that goes into finding them is expensive. Most drugs cost a fortune just to discover, then you have to test on tissue cultures, animals, then finally humans. You usually need to do three clinical trials at least. Depending on the type of disease the drug is designed to treat, patient availability and test subjects that have an ideal case to test on, clinical trials can take anywhere from 5 to 15 years. There are drugs being put on the market now that were discovered in the Early 90's - THAT'S how long it takes. And of course, these tests cost hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. And if the drug doesn't pass the trials, all that money is for nothing. Also, if during testing, another competitor releases a better drug that treats the same disease, again, all that money is down the drain.

So that's why Drug Companies have to charge a lot - because modern medical R&D is incredibly, INCREDIBLY expensive. The government's not gonna foot the bill for the research, so who will? The medical drug business is extremely risky, extremely expensive and extremely dangerous (in terms of legal liability). If people put money into a company for research, don't they deserve some of that money back? Don't drug-company share-holders deserve money? Sure, the drug might be manufactured cheaply - but you don't hear about the MASSIVE COST (often 1 Billion USD +) and risk that went into researching and developing the drug and getting it past FDA and TGA tests.

But then again, I don't think there's a single person here who wouldn't steal the drug if they knew it could save a loved one. If he paid all he could, he should be given the drug. No one, NO ONE deserves to die because they are poor. Morally I would say that as long as he tried to pay for it legally, he is in the clear with resorting to stealing it. Legally, of course, he would be in the wrong - but the law isn't always on the side of justice.

I'm glad I live in a country where our government will usually step in and help the poor get the medical treatment they need (I live in Australia - a nation that has, as perplexing as it might sound to you Americans, public healthcare for the poor AND democracy and Liberty and all that jazz. Instead of spending tax payer money on building more and more deadly weapons for who knows what purpose, we spend our tax money on helping the sick. What do you think is the right choice?)