Heinz dilemma

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 $2000 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?

 

Would it not have been easier for Heinz to take out a loan from a bank? If he offered to pay the druggist back, I'm assuming he's capable of doing the same for the bank, no?

 

That isn't the situation he's addressing. This question is a famous psychology question that determines your morals.

 

Well in that case wouldn't it depend on who's perspective you're looking at it from? Or is that the whole point of the question?

 

a moral dilemma - would you commit a crime to save a life

option 1: you don't steal the drug, your wife dies, you live with the guilt knowing you gave up a chance to save her

option 2: you steal the drug you serve the consequence and your wife lives

alternative situation: you steal the drug, your wife dies, you serve the consequences

I would take option 2, sacrifice your time to potentially save a loved one. You risk the chance of option 3, but the guilt would be worse

side note: if Heinz had created his financial empire earlier he wouldn't have to worry about money

 

depends if you wife has life insurance or not... jk

i think most people would steal the medicine if it came down to it.

 

Id have to go with stealing the drugs and hoping for the best, I think its what most people would end up doing.

 

Thinking about this realistically - I'd have to just hope for the best with my wife..

My morals, of course, tell me to steal the medicine...but there's NO way you'd get away with that..C'mon guys.

 

My sociology professor gave us this work sheet last semester. I would say I would steal it.

 

I'd do it for my wife, and risk prison, if it would save her life.

 

I would go for stealing it. You can't put a price on a life, especially if a cure is right in front of your nose. After all, the most trouble you could get into is most likely a fine or prison. But I would probably leave the $1000 on the counter as a formality, since the guy did discover the cure after all.

 

This is the same like:
Is it alright to steal bread when you're poor?
Stealing is stealing, but i would do it in this situation.

 

Stealing in this situation is the Robin Hood mentality... I suppose it'd be better to steal it. If selfishness was taken out of the equation, then one would steal it and turn himself in. I'm actually not too sure about this, but in my opinion a life is worth more.

 

I'd steal it, not stealing it is wrong IMO. The guy is a douche for not selling it to you to save a life so, his morals are fucked. Why can't yours be too (from his POV).