Heinz’s wife was dying because of a special kind of cancer. There was only one medicine that the doctors thought might cure her, but it was an advanced formula that a pharmaceutical company had recently discovered. This drug was extremely costly to produce due to high-cost equipment and singular production techniques. On top of that, the company was selling the drug at a price tenfold the production costs. Heinz went to everyone he knew to borrow money but he could only collect half of what the drug costs. He sought an audience with the CEO of the pharmaceutical company, told him that his wife was dying and begged him to sell the drug cheaper or allowed him to defer the payment. But the CEO refused. He couldn’t make any exception as they had spent massive funds in the research and equipment, and turning in a profit was the top priority for the company. Heinz was devastated, and at wit’s end about what he should do next. In the end, he broke into the company and stole the drug for his wife.
Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why/why not? Place your answers in the Form.
- I think it is justifiable for Heinz to have broken into the laboratory. Medicines and drugs should not be kept in private hands, as companies will always prioritize profit over the well-being of others, as seen in this dilemma.
- While the company needs to make a profit, this should be done through seeking government support, instead of restricting life-saving medicine from those who need it.
- In this case it is reasonable for Heinz to face a penalty, as he has done something against the law. However, ethically, Heinz has made the right decision.