Question

Heinz's dilemma is a frequently used example in many ethics and morality classes. One well-known version of the dilemma, used in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, is stated as follows:

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 laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Heinz dilemma. (2017, August 4 ). Retrieved August 4, 2017, from https://mymission.lamission.edu/userdata/beltray/docs/HEINZ%20DILEMMA.doc

Theresa, Jose, and Darnell all have different opinions about the best option in the Heinz dilemma.

Theresa agrees with option 1: Heinz should steal the drug and not go to prison, because this is unfair.

Jose agrees with option 2: Heinz should not steal the drug because he would be breaking the law.

Darnell agrees with option 3: Heinz should steal the drug and accept any prison sentence.

Write a justification for all 3 possibilities in the Heinz Dilemma. This will require you to take 3 different perspectives on the dilemma, including ones that you may not personally agree with. For each possibility, include these points:

Answer 1

Theresa agrees with option 1: Heinz should steal the drug and not go to prison, because this is unfair.
No one can watch their loved ones die because the medicines are not affordable. This is partly the mistake of the government to let one of their citizens die by not providing the necessary medicines. So what Heinz had done is right and the state should pay the money to the shopkeeper and let Heinz walk free. He didn’t steal for pleasure but to save a life, so in all moral standards, his action is justified. If Heinz should be punished, so the shop keeper who sold the drug for 10 times more price.
Jose agrees with option 2: Heinz should not steal the drug because he would be breaking the law.
There is always a process or proper channel through which Heinz should have got the medicine. He should have gone to the local council, explained his situation and asked for their help. He should have even asked money as loan from some of his friends. Breaking into someone’s property may not be a good option and it is against the law. He also set a low moral standard by breaking into it.
Darnell agrees with option 3: Heinz should steal the drug and accept any prison sentence.
Heinz in a moral responsibility of saving a dying member of the family weighed both the option letting someone die or stealing something and saving the life. In his view point he chose the latter, otherwise he will regret his decision of not saving his wife which in his point of view is killing his own wife. So what’s crueller, killing someone or stealing something? He stole it and now he will accept the prison sentence because at least he could see his wife later in life.