I enjoy thinking about and discussing hypothetical moral dilemmas (here are ten classic ones). Today, I just learned of a money-based dilemma, created by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg in 1963. It’s called the “Heinz Dilemma,” and he designed it to study the moral development of children.
Here’s the dilemma: A woman has cancer and will die unless she takes a special kind of medicine. This medicine is a type of radium that a pharmacist discovered. The drug cost $200 to make, and the pharmacist sold it for $2,000.
The dying woman’s husband, Heinz, could not afford to buy the medicine. He borrowed from everyone he knew, but was only able to scrape together $1,000. Heinz went to the pharmacist and asked him to sell the drug to him for $1,000. The pharmacist said no. He asked the pharmacist if he could buy the drug for $1,000 with the promise to pay the other $1,000 later. The pharmacist said no.
Heinz broke into the drugstore and stole the drug for his wife.
Should Heinz have done that?
Before reading this article about the Heinz Dilemma, answer the question and explain your reasoning.
Mark Frauenfelder Mark Frauenfelder is editor-in-chief of MAKE magazine and the founder of the popular site Boing Boing, Mark was an editor at Wired from 1993-1998 and is the founding editor of Wired Online. He covers creative DIY projects and how-tos that will help you make the most of your money.
{ 14 comments… add a comment }
The end does not justify the means. I would argue that the act of stealing was wrong. I can understand how you would do anything to save the life of a loved one. Stealing is wrong.
Mr. Heinz could approach members of his community for funds or fundraising. The pharmacist is a greedy sob in this hypothetical situation. There are alternatives to theft.
Although, his hypothetical actions are wrong. If I were in his position and unable to obtain funds, I probably would consider stealing the medicine as well. I would rather go to jail or face the other consequences if I knew it would save the life of a loved one.
I’d break in, leave $200 and an IOU for the rest and “borrow” the medicine. Once my wife is well, we’ll anonymously send them the other $1800.
1. They got the original $200 that they paid for the medicine. No theft took place.
2. They got an IOU which is as good as real money to the state of California.
3. We’d pay them the rest when the wife was better so she could work again. We’d consider interest if the medicine was tasty enough.
The assumption is that all other money-raising efforts such as community fundraising has failed, and/or time has run out for the patient and the medicine is needed immediately. IANA Torah scholar but I believe Jewish law says that the mitzvah of saving a life overrules most other factors. The pharmacist may be a douche for charging so much but it’s his invention and therefore his right. I would break in causing as little damage as possible, steal the medicine, leave the $1000 and a note taking responsibility. I would turn myself in and go to jail/pay any penalties. Ultimately I would reimburse the pharmacist fully for the medicine and the damages and a life would be saved. That is the best answer for me.
What about another situation?
What if she was locked in the pharmacy by accident and about to suffocate unless Heinz broke the window (worth $2100) to save her?
In my mind, if the question is “Should Heinz break into the store and do $2100 of damage to save his wife’s life?” the answer would seem to be obviously yes
This example is a subset. (The $2100 of damage consists of $2000 of medicine that now cannot be sold and $100 for the window)
Mac
By all means steal, but don’t shirk the consequences of doing so. The kicker for most people is that they want to steal without going to jail for it.
Stealing is the appropriate course of action because the alternative is the wife’s death, by stealing you are guaranteed that she lives but you also go to jail (provided that you are ethical and admit your crime). That is a lesser cost in my opinion.
Would I steal the drug? You bet I would, and I’d probably kick the pharmacist in the shins as well. Life vs money? Life every time.
I’m not sure why this came up in 1963. The talmud already discusses this. In Jewish law Heinz is required to steal the medicine as saving a life overrides most other “sins”. He is also required to repay the cost of the medicine.
peter
I think this isn’t so much a question of the rights and responsibilities of the husband of the dying wife, but really a question of the rights of the pharmacist. If he/she has the rights of everyone else, then by all means charge whatever you want for your intellectual property. I think it is reasonable, however, to suppose that those in the medical field enter into it with the knowledge that they forfeit some rights, e.g. the hippocratic oath. While we don’t currently restrict the rights of caregivers to make a profit at the expense of their patients (at least in situations like this), I think the pharmacist is guilty of extortion. In the end, if I was in this situation, that would lead me to theft, possibly with later remuneration if at all possible.
The main caveat in this is that we live in a society where this is not deemed to be the legal reality, therefore much like Socrates, we’ve got to drink us some hemlock. Therefore the ethical decision is to not steal, and accept the fact that until recently, there was no treatment whatsoever.
it is perhaps a consequence of the anti-drug propoganda I’ve been raised on in America, but I see pharmacists as drug pushers; If it is okay to rip off one kind of gangsters then it is okay to rip them all off. American law is about generating wealth through shortages; there is *no law*, only patterns of enforcement.
It is by law that this extortion is enshrined. Mitzvahs could be law but are not… If you have an ethical obligation to save a live the law cannot be followed.
Further, because the draconian penalties for robbery would impose more ethical quandries, the right answer is to steal, and to try not to get caught. This is the nation that we have made. Repaying the extortive sum becomes a sort of sin when it enables your enemies to imprison you.
Moral Hazard. Let those words thunder in the ears of the people who I just offended. Our laws are tools to make help or harm. I follow the law at all times, but I respect it less and less, and it is no barrier to my saving a loved ones life in this case.
it is chilling to read here that most people consider property to have some importance next to a human being’s life… how can anyone seriously equate our responsibility to an abstract (here, society) with our responsibility to a loved one? I find the idea incomprehensible. Without a second thought, i would steal to save ANYONE’s life. Would i attempt to mitigate harm to the one who owned the medicine? Yes, though it seems clear in the situation given that little to no harm is done to the gouging pharmacist. Indeed, the reverse could be argued. But i believe any discussion of consequences of the theft to be a separate discussion
C’mon people. This is YOUR WIFE. Hell, YES. Steal the medicine. Do what you need to do for family. Yes, you’ll probably go to jail, but it’s not like the pharmacist is going to be able to undo the “damage” of administering a life-saving drug to your wife. It’s not like he can get it out of her once she’s had it. And, folks, if you’re really crazy in love with someone, doing time in jail knowing that your actions saved the life of a loved one would be worth it. (And hey, I’m from Texas – try to find a jury here that would send you to jail for any hard time, given the circumstances. We’re real sentimental here.) And, what about usury? Charging as much as the pharmacist is, and so much above cost, technically qualifies as usury. And finally, why judge my morals for stealing something my wife has to have? Morally, according to my mother’s family, it’s wrong for the pharmacist to withhold medicine (by pricing it at a ridiculous cost and refusing to negotiate) that a sick, dying person needs. (My momma’s people are Cherokee, by the by).
over pricing is improper.
stealing is not proper.
but being inlove is a game of life we cant never surrender.
we are born to love , to care , to respect and that to be loved, to be cared, and to be respected.
why not help each other and give a chance of long life to those who wishes it rather than living out our concience until death of not helping those in need .
by the way im ms shierine siares….. from philippines.
Goodluck to all.
Great story eh?
My husband & I were discussing this moral dilemma and so I searched for it & came across this site. He actually came up with an interesting side note to the story, saying, what if it was so expensive because it was the only one available and someone had already paid for it? And Heinz steals the medicine so someone else’s wife now has to die! Maybe this is why ethics should not be subjective after all. (Although at first I was like, wtf, you wouldn’t steal the medicine for me??!! But now I see his point)