The Heinzman debate

[GarrotTheThief]

The reason why the drug is outrageously expensive is because it costs $400 million to bring a drug to market. There is a hepatitis drug on the market right now that's very expensive ($1100/pill) but cures the disease. I can't blame the husband for stealing the drug, but the pharmacist owes these people nothing at all. It's his property and it's been stolen. If I was the pharmacist, I would've shot the thief. The ideal approach would be to address the economic and political forces that drives up the cost of these drugs. It's not the pharmacist's fault that the drug is so expensive and he's not being greedy. He has to get something back for his effort too.

Does he? Why? Do Sea Lions get something back for putting forth effort other than motion forwards? Yes...they get food when they put effort into hunting, but what about their prey? Their reward for effort escaping is death at the Sea Lion's mouth.

Nature is not democratic and nature is no about utility and markets. Nature is very aristocratic and all about plutocracy. The idea that someone deserves something in terms of monetary value for effort expelled is a belief, yes, and a valid one, but not rooted in any objective reality. It is a subjective humanistic belief, like an aesthetic, or a taste acquired for wine...it is not a biological reality like the necessity to drink water or perish.

The idea that we live in a free market is false. We do not. Even in economics we are well aware that we live in a monopolistic economy...not monopolistic competition, a monopoly, and a monopoly is always part of a plutocracy, hence the idea of free markets principle in an ethical consideration is vacuous, cold, and illogical.

 

[Pionart]

The reason why the drug is outrageously expensive is because it costs $400 million to bring a drug to market. There is a hepatitis drug on the market right now that's very expensive ($1100/pill) but cures the disease. I can't blame the husband for stealing the drug, but the pharmacist owes these people nothing at all. It's his property and it's been stolen. If I was the pharmacist, I would've shot the thief. The ideal approach would be to address the economic and political forces that drives up the cost of these drugs. It's not the pharmacist's fault that the drug is so expensive and he's not being greedy. He has to get something back for his effort too.

So, the actual drug itself doesn't really cost much at all?

It's greed. To not save lives just because you want to get money for your effort, even though it takes no real additional effort? Greed. This is the mentality that keeps people in third world countries from getting medication that they could easily get if everything wasn't all about PROFIT WEWWW.

I can't comprehend why the hell you would shoot someone in this case, that is utterly ridiculous. Your morals are fucked m8. Maybe if the pharmacist was in the room and the person broke in and the doctor jumped to conclusions and was like OH MY GOD THIS PERSON IS GOING TO KILL ME MUST SELF DEFEND but to shoot/kill someone for stealing something? You would probably send someone to jail for life for stealing a loaf of bread.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Here is the correct answer and the only answer that I can conceive:

The thief is ethically and morally right for stealing the drug but legally wrong.

Since ethics and what is legal do not coincide, and this is actually taught in law school too, that ethics and the law should never be confused for the same thing, this answer seems to be 100 percent true and an answer that anyone should be able to accept.

It should be noted that sometimes laws and ethics overlap. For example it is wrong to kill and it is illegal to kill but the reasons for the law and the reasons for the moral issue are entirely different even though they lead to the same conclusion.

It would be pointless to discuss the reasons since they are variable reasons based on the society or normative core, but in essence, the law and what is ethical can never be the same thing...they can only overlap but never are they one in the same.

It will always be ethically wrong to prevent someone from living no matter what assuming nothing is changed from the above scenario ...and it will always be legally wrong to steal..but what is legal is not always what is moral or right by the standards of humanity.

If this were true then law would never need to be reformed to align with the moral core but it is continually reformed.

And that is what is so great about our society...that we acknowledge this but remember things can always be better and we should always do our best to move in that direction.

In the meantime there are victims to the law and to us who have it good. I can't complain about my situation...I live the good life - good food, got a roof over my head, etc......

But I do know that there are many disenfranchised people....

for example the purchase of wedding rings contributes to African child slavery.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

So, the actual drug itself doesn't really cost much at all?

It's greed. To not save lives just because you want to get money for your effort, even though it takes no real additional effort? Greed. This is the mentality that keeps people in third world countries from getting medication that they could easily get if everything wasn't all about PROFIT WEWWW.

I can't comprehend why the hell you would shoot someone in this case, that is utterly ridiculous. Your morals are fucked m8. Maybe if the pharmacist was in the room and the person broke in and the doctor jumped to conclusions and was like OH MY GOD THIS PERSON IS GOING TO KILL ME MUST SELF DEFEND but to shoot/kill someone for stealing something? You would probably send someone to jail for life for stealing a loaf of bread.

He is confusing morality with law.

 

[Seymour]

I'd say it's a conflict between different systems. On the pharmacist's side, it's the right of property. He owns the drug (and perhaps the formula, if you want to get into the intellectual property debate). On Heinz's side, he has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. His wife's right to survival is (in my opinion) greater than the pharmacist's right to profit.

So, if I were the judge, I might judge Heinz guilty of theft (since I'd be obligated to enforce the law, which has its own value), but give him a lesser sentence. Perhaps he could be assigned work that furthered finding a cheaper cure (assuming the cure was expensive because of actual costs, not just greed). In that case Heinz could work towards (or at least fund) improvements that would make the drug more affordable for all.

If the price was high because of greed, I would assign Heinz a relatively cheap penalty and minimal jail time.

In any case, I'd judge the right of property control to be less that the right to survival, just as I'd be lenient toward a starving person stealing a loaf of bread. The exact punishments would have to balance the system of property control vs the right to survive. Regardless, it's how one weighs those two different imperatives. Libertarians (who tend to score very low on measures of empathy) might judge the right of property to be sacrosanct. I'd disagree.

 

[Tellenbach]

Does he? Why? Do Sea Lions get something back for putting forth effort other than motion forwards?

I do believe in the barter system; I believe it is fair to exchange one service or product for another. Absent this subjective agreement, there is no civilized society.

So, the actual drug itself doesn't really cost much at all?

Bringing a drug to market is much more than merely synthesizing it. You have to do all sorts of expensive clinical trials that last years. Why shouldn't the pharmacist or drug company get compensated for these expenses?

It's greed. To not save lives just because you want to get money for your effort, even though it takes no real additional effort?

The proper target of your indignation should be the bureaucratic apparatus which forces the drug company to spend so much resources in bringing the drug to market.

I can't comprehend why the hell you would shoot someone in this case, that is utterly ridiculous.

And if everyone just steals what they think they are entitled to then no one would bother developing any drug.

Your morals are fucked m8.

I think it's moral to protect property rights.

You would probably send someone to jail for life for stealing a loaf of bread.

No, it's not worth it to spend years putting someone in prison for stealing bread. I'd just make him pay for it.

 

[Pionart]

Bringing a drug to market is much more than merely synthesizing it. You have to do all sorts of expensive clinical trials that last years. Why shouldn't the pharmacist or drug company get compensated for these expenses?

The proper target of your indignation should be the bureaucratic apparatus which forces the drug company to spend so much resources in bringing the drug to market.

And if everyone just steals what they think they are entitled to then no one would bother developing any drug.

I think it's moral to protect property rights.

No, it's not worth it to spend years putting someone in prison for stealing bread. I'd just make him pay for it.

Yes, but that particular instance of the drug didn't cost much. Ideally a drug that is supposed to do good should be funded by the people, or by governments or simply by good hearted and well funded individuals, and once it exists, should be made as widely available as possible. I am unsure if I believe medicine is good in general, but assuming it is then this should be the case. So yes there is a problem with how things are set up and it is hard to say how viable it is to change this. I am taking a very idealistic approach here, thinking people and society could be motivated by doing what is best for all.

I think that given the circumstances - if stealing something will give someone life, and there is no alternative, then it is right to steal it. If no one had the money to pay for the drugs, then no one would bother developing the drug. In this case, the person didn't have the money anyway, so it doesn't make a difference to whether the drug is developed. You can try and universalise it in some Kantian manner, but that doesn't take into account that this is not just a case of stealing, but stealing where there is no other option.

Sure, you can protect property to some degree, but I can't comprehend how you can value property so highly that you would shoot someone to protect it. Unless maybe you think that the life of someone who steals is of that little value that the trade off works, but this seems an ugly view to take. A human life is very valuable, in itself and for how a person relates to the society around them. Shooting in this case does far more damage that what it aims to protect.

 

[Tellenbach]

Ideally a drug that is supposed to do good should be funded by the people, or by governments or simply by good hearted and well funded individuals, and once it exists, should be made as widely available as possible.

Drug development is funded by customers of other drugs. Perhaps this gentleman should try harder to come up with the money. Perhaps he can ask his friends for help or get a second job.

I think that given the circumstances - if stealing something will give someone life, and there is no alternative, then it is right to steal it.

Savages steal.

Sure, you can protect property to some degree, but I can't comprehend how you can value property so highly that you would shoot someone to protect it.

It would depend on the property. Some property is worth more than some lives.

A human life is very valuable, in itself and for how a person relates to the society around them. Shooting in this case does far more damage that what it aims to protect.

I disagree. Value is subjective and I don't think the life of a criminal is that valuable.

 

[Chthonic]

he ends up stealing it from the pharmacist to save his wife. His wife lives, and they live happily ever after.

Was Heinz right for stealing the drug? Was the Pharmacist right for keeping the drug to himself? What do you think? I want to hear your opinions.

There is no right and wrong in this situation because it's predicated on the assumption that death is always bad. Death is a natural process for all beings that live. Death itself isn't intrinsically bad, it's the inevitable. And what of the morality of it all if she takes the drug and dies the next day in a car crash? It's all just meaningless. We have this pet obssession in life that death is to be avoided at all costs, including the cost of quality of life where you have human's effectively plugged into a machine doing nothing except breathing. There are worse things than the natural end of a life, even if that natural end is at the hands of a disease. There is living a life with no meaning, or purpose and feeling as if you are a waste of space. That is a lot worse than just an end.

But in humanity death is like satan, the bogeyman, the one great evil we must stop regardless of logic or reason. Why? Because we do not know what is on the other side of it, and because many people are convinced there is nothing. So they fear to go there.

These kinds of moral dillemna's are never really conundrums. They are just situations where we refuse to acknowledge that all things must end.

- My devil's advocate post. Check the number of this one (666). Not intentional but fitting.

 

[INTP]

Savages steal.

Savages shoot.

 

[Totenkindly]

Let's say the thief is stealing your cat. Would you approve of shooting him then?

No.

I hope you don't have cats.

If someone stole my cat, I'd feel sympathy for him... poor bastard.

EDIT: Of course, with any hypothetical scenario, there are so many unknown details, and you can plug in any number of new bits of information that might change my response.

Yes, I found the scenario remarkably lacking in enough detail to provide an ethical judgment on my part.

I disagree. Value is subjective and I don't think the life of a criminal is that valuable.

Remind me of that next time you get pulled over for speeding or accused of doing a rolling stop.

Law isn't morality, and law isn't infallible.

 

[prplchknz]

plot twist: he kills the pharamcist and steals all the drugs and gets rich selling those out of his home.

 

[Rasofy]

What if I told you they are both right

 

[Jaguar]

I can't blame the husband for stealing the drug, but the pharmacist owes these people nothing at all. It's his property and it's been stolen. If I was the pharmacist, I would've shot the thief.

Do you live in the U.S.? If so, which state permits a person to shoot another for theft of personal property?

 

[Totenkindly]

Do you live in the U.S.? If so, which state permits a person to shoot another for theft of personal property?

A quick google brings up this from 2012:

Shoot a Robber, Not a Thief


Self-defense laws throughout the nation see crimes against persons differently than crimes against property. In most states, you can shoot someone committing a felony crime against your person. In no state may you shoot someone committing a crime against property. The difference is usually straightforward.

Crimes against persons are where someone is threatened during the crime. They include: murder, rape, robbery (either armed or strong-arm robbery), carjacking, home invasion, arson of occupied building, kidnapping, aircraft or boat piracy, bombing (either thrown or planted), purse-snatching, assault, and battery. [Note that the last two might not be felonies. Minor assault (an idle threat) and minor battery (an uninvited touch) are not felonies, so it would be illegal to shoot the offender.]

Crimes against property are where no one is threatened. They include: sneak-theft, car break-ins, hub-cap stealing, tire stealing, burglary of unoccupied buildings, pickpocketing, counterfeiting, scamming, and fraud. Dr. Sweet’s grandfatherly advice: Do not shoot anyone committing one of these crimes.

Armed Citizens and the Law » Blog Archive » Shoot a Robber, Not a Thief

 

[Jaguar]

A quick google brings up this from 2012:



Armed Citizens and the Law » Blog Archive » Shoot a Robber, Not a Thief

I already knew that, dear. That's why I was posting.
Ever heard a lawyer say, "Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to"?

[MENTION=20113]Tellenbach[/MENTION], don't bother responding to my post. Now.

 

[Yoohoolarry]

A pharmacist creates a life-saving drug. A pharmacist? Pharmacists usually dispense prescription drugs.

For the sake of the scenario, can you please just answer the question?
I'm aware that there are some factual errors however Heinz did eventually steal the drug that can save his wife.

 

[Jaguar]

For the sake of the scenario, can you please just answer the question?
I'm aware that there are some factual errors however Heinz did eventually steal the drug that can save his wife.

No, Mr., Mrs. or Miss post #1, but you joined in 2013. I won't. The question makes no sense.

 

[Yoohoolarry]

No, Mr., Mrs. or Miss post #1, but you joined in 2013. I won't. The question makes no sense.

Well, what portions are confusing you besides the misuse of the term, pharmacist?
Also, I don't want to sound snarky but a quick google search could clear anything up. I /too/ should refresh my memory of whether it was the doctor or pharmacist who created the drug through a google search.
Never the less, what parts -are- confusing you?

 

[Jaguar]

Well, what portions are confusing you besides the misuse of the term, pharmacist?
Also, I don't want to sound snarky but a quick google search could clear anything up. I /too/ should refresh my memory of whether it was the doctor or pharmacist who created the drug through a google search.
Never the less, what parts -are- confusing you?

Actually, you sound like a troll. Good luck with that.