The Heinzman debate

[Yoohoolarry]

So, in my Developmental Psychology class, we were studying morality and when it develops. It develops in three stages total; but to test the final form that is usually gained in the late teens/young adult hood, a psychologist created "The Heinzman Debate".
In it, a woman is diagnosed with a terminal illness and will die soon. A pharmacist creates a life saving drug, yet it's outrageously expensive and hardly anyone can buy it. The husband of the woman, Heinz, pleads with the pharmacist multiple times to give him the drug, and even resorts to charity to buy it. Of course, this drug is so expensive, 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.

 

[INTP]

Yes, because the pharma company was acting immorally by pricing the drug so high that it cant be afforded by most to get max profits instead of max amount of lives saved. Drug store can get the money back from insurance company, so even if it was a private store, they dont lose any money.

 

[sprinkles]

Whether it is right isn't nearly as important as whether it's excusable.

 

[Tellenbach]

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.

 

[Nicodemus]

If I was the pharmacist, I would've shot the thief.

I hope you don't have kids.

 

[Tellenbach]

I hope you don't have kids.

Do you oppose shooting criminals in general or just in this hypothetical?

 

[Nicodemus]

Do you oppose shooting criminals in general or just in this hypothetical?

In the majority of cases, including this hypothetical.

 

[Tellenbach]

In the majority of cases, including this hypothetical.

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

 

[Jaguar]

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

 

[Nicodemus]

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

No.

 

[Tellenbach]

No.

I hope you don't have cats.

 

[violett]

I have had cats, all cats are not created equal, certain ones I have adored others I have fantasized about kicking into the creek behind my house and fought a daily battle within myself not to act on the urge.

 

[á´…eparted]

I can not fault the pharmacist from charging what he did, nor can I completely fault the man for stealing. Stealing is wrong, but since this was for the purpose of a greater good I have a difficult time with strong enforcement as well. Ultimately I am stuck saying "I don't know". I also don't have nearly enough context or detail to draw a proper conclusion on this.

 

[Adam]

I think, technically, Heinz is in the wrong here. While stealing the medicine is certainly understandable given the extenuating circumstances, the act, in and of itself, is completely undermining from a societal point of view. Stealing, and most other forms of criminality, represents termination of the social contract between the perpetrator and the State, and effectively symbolizes his exit from the society that has developed around those rules, as well as his renunciation of all its protections. Heinz put his own self-interest before that of society, his actions advocating for the return to an anarchic natural state. Heinz' belief that his wife has a right to the medicine, regardless of the terms of the social contract (i.e. whether he can pay or not), is a matter between him and the State, not between him and another private individual.
Theft is a morally indefensible action -- period. The question is if you are willing to abide by the social contract of a society in which you have to resort to theft in order to save the life of your loved one from disease or, similarly, steal food to save your own. In the end, the individual has the natural right to choose to break the contract and exit a society, and by doing so potentially become an existential threat to that society. When enough people do it within a short amount of time we call it a revolution.

But I would do exactly the same as Heinz if I was in his shoes.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

He was justified.

Stealing the drug breaks some kind of rule, but what are the actual consequences? Even if we assume the price of the drug isn't inflated for some dubious reasons (which we don't know from our information given here) and assume there is some kind of reasonable economic basis for the cost of this drug, the consequences of Heinz bypassing the cost are probably so remarkably diffused as to be worth averting the death of his wife. Additionally, we can see few other alternatives, as it has been clearly stated that he attempted other things before stealing and none of them worked.

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.

 

[Beorn]

He was justified.

Stealing the drug breaks some kind of rule, but what the actual consequences? Even if we assume the price of the drug isn't inflated for some dubious reasons (which we don't know from our information given here) and assume there is some kind of reasonable economic basis for the cost of this drug, the consequences of Heinz bypassing the cost are probably so remarkably diffused as to be worth averting the death of his wife. Additionally, we can see few other alternatives, as it has been clearly stated that he attempted other things before stealing and none of them worked.

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.

You say he was morally justified, but was he morally obligated to steal?

 

[sprinkles]

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.

I guess this is a note to thieves to shoot first. Good job turning a robbery into a murder.

 

[sprinkles]

I hope you don't have cats.

I hope you don't have cats.

 

[Tellenbach]

The husband of the woman, Heinz, pleads with the pharmacist multiple times to give him the drug, and even resorts to charity to buy it.

Does Heinz have a car he can sell? or a house? Did Heinz offer to pay the pharmacist in installments or barter his time and skill in exchange? Maybe he can wash this guy's car and walk his dog for the next 5 years. I can only assume that he didn't try hard enough.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

You say he was morally justified, but was he morally obligated to steal?

If every one of my suppositions about the situation is correct, I'd say yes. The problem with obligation is that I think it has a very high bar for certainty, and in a real life version of this event, I'm not sure there's enough, and I'd consider Heinz justified, but say I am insufficiently informed to call him obligated.