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 pharmacist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the pharmacist 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 store to steal the drug for his wife.
Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or
Under the circumstances, it is my belief that Heinz should have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife. But Heinz should have broken into the store only after ascertaining that there was no other means by which to find any other medication that would produce the same effects as the medication that was discovered by the pharmacist in the small town. Due to the fact that it is highly improbable that Heinz could have found any drugs that would have the same effect as the drug that the pharmacist had discovered, in time to save his wife's life, this serves as reinforcement for my philosophical belief, that Heinz was doing the right thing by breaking into the store to steal the drug for his wife.
In essence, ethics can be defined as a means of determining the ...