Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
My answer: Yes. Because human life is more valuable than property. I think the druggist has an interest in compensation though, and Heinz should attempt to secretly send the druggist cash in installments as his financial situation will allow.
Is this some sort of thinly-veiled criticism of the pharma industry?
And I would say yes, because the druggist is an asshole and the wife is, well, my wife. I might leave the guy some cash for however much I could afford, but beyond that, too bad for him. Sure, he deserves some compensation – and there might be other costs (R&D, etc.) that we’re not immediately privy to, but it boils down to something very simple: Piss off (not endanger or make destitute) some random stranger to save the life of someone very important to me? Probably any day.
I’d probably end up in jail (gee, I wonder who the most likely suspect for stealing this unique drug for this very rare cancer might be…?), but at least she’d be alive.
That, or sign up for a credit card / bank loan / sell a car / apply for low-income prescription cost assistance.
And I must add that I thought this was going to be more along the lines of “So… glass or plastic? Squeeze-bottom or squirt-top? Organic or regular?”
I doubt the original author of this problem had that in mind, but I think it does have particular relevance to our times.
I should have come up with a better title. Everyone who read that probably thinks it’s a ketchup question.
More importantly, why has that druggist not sold his formula to Merck or some such for a tidy sum? And how did he have the money to run clinical trials?
We can change “druggist” in this story to “a major pharmaceutical company”, but the moral question remains the same.
Ethics are alway contextual. And in this context, it would be immoral of Heinz *NOT *to steal the drug.
It is not immoral for the druggist to demand 2,000 dollars. It is not immoral for the man to steal the drug to give to his wife. It would also not be immoral for the druggist to sue the man for 2,000 dollars.
Bingo.
One thing to consider in this situation (and by extension the drug industry) is the long-term impact on incentives. If the chemist were only able to charge an amount equal to, or slightly above, his raw material costs it would substantially reduce the incentives for the next chemist to toil away to make a cure for another disease. While the price the chemist is charging may seem outrageous, it is also acting as an incentive to motivate the next round of inventors.
Yes. But he should also be prepared to go to jail as a result of his actions.
How is this a dilemma? Who would answer no? If you added that we had to knock the druggist unconscious with a leg of lamb and shit in his face while he’s out, I’d do that too. It’s my wife we’re talking about.
This is only true if we assume that the next round of inventors and all of their loved ones are 100% immune to all disease and illnesses. The incentive is - my mom/spouse/self is dying. After all, it’s not the actual labrats who make the big bucks here.
Merck probably wouldn’t pay much for anything so specialized. They are far more interested in diseases that afflict more people; and generally prefer lifetime treatments over cures/vaccines. There’s more money in treatments like that.
Libertarians/free market fundamentalist types. I’ve repeatedly run into people who argue ( including here on the SDMB ) that if someone wants to massively ratchet up the price for something because the people who need it are desperate, then that’s perfectly all right even if people die from it. And that if you steal it to save your or someone else’s life you are in the wrong.
If I’m Heinz, I’d do it. My loved one’s life is worth more than the law or property rights. I acknowledge their value to civilization, but I gotta do what I gotta do.
Not all of us think that way. I agree, the druggist has the right to charge whatever he wants . . . but he’s obviously losing business if he’s overpricing his product. There are probably many people like Heinz, who would be able to pay for the drug if it were cheaper.
That said . . . Heinz’s first obligation is to his wife, and should steal the drug as a last resort . . . with every intention of paying back the druggist.
Well, Kohlberg wasn’t interested so much as to whether the question was answered yes or no, but as to the reasons the person gave for answering yes or no.
Where does John Kerry enter into this?
Children. My understanding has always been that it’s a maturity test for moral development. Children of a certain maturity will answer that he should not steal it because he will get in trouble for it. A slightly more advanced child might say he should steal it because he wants it, again missing the larger ethical issue.
A mature adult should be capable of articulating that either a human life is more valuable than property rights of some douchey scientist or that others who need the medicine are just as valuable and he doesn`t have the right to take it by force at their expense.
The point is the level of moral reasoning applied, not the answer. Or that’s what I recall. I never even took freshman psychology… I read about it in a book 10 years ago.