babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Heinz's dilemma

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Heinz's dilemma
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 25 February 2004 11:58 AM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We were discussing this in class yesterday (Carol Gilligan and moral philosophy), and I thought it might be interesting to see how babblers respond:

Heinz’s Dilemma

In Europe, a woman was near death from a very bad disease, a special kind of cancer. There was one drug 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 make. 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 get together only about $1,000, which was 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.” Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.”

- from Lawrence Kohlberg, The Philosophy of Moral Development (San Franscisco: Harper & Row, 1981).

So, the question asked at this point is, should Heinz steal the drug?

Consider it, then click here to see if you answered typically. (paragraph 2)

I am atypical.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 February 2004 12:11 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heinz should go to the display of orthopaedic canes in the chemist's shop, take the stoutest one, and beat the druggist with it until he agrees to hand over the drug for nothing.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 February 2004 12:17 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Of course. Physically assaulting Heinz and stealing $200 worth of radium from him is the right of any "victim".

Maybe Heinz should lobby his government for socialized health care, so that he's not forced to become a violent criminal in order to save his wife.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 25 February 2004 12:17 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps. If the doctors knew about the drug, then maybe another more compassionate person could make and give Heinz the drug.

Wouldn't someone want to see the woman succeed as a test case? Maybe they could supply the medicine.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 February 2004 12:27 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Seems to me that this question is pre-configured to be as paradoxical as possible. Certainly nobody is going to be rooting for the wife to die; we want her to get the drug.

And of course the pharmacist is charging an egregious amount for the drug (the example doesn't make it clear whether the extra $1800 in the price represents operating costs and research and development costs, or whether it's just pure naked greed).

And hopefully, even though the chemist expressed a wish to "make money" (which does beat starving, by all accounts), we'll recognize that he has at least some right to the fruits of his labours, or at least we'll recognize that if he doesn't have a right to his ideas, nobody else has one either.

All in all, carefully crafted to be all but unanswerable.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 February 2004 12:40 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 25 February 2004 02:25 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heinz should have negotiated with his HMO to fund the drug out of his health benefits flexible spending account.
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 February 2004 02:35 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Watch it worker_drone. You're askin' for a rolly-eye!
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 25 February 2004 02:59 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Of course. Physically assaulting Heinz and stealing $200 worth of radium from him is the right of any "victim".

Maybe Heinz should lobby his government for socialized health care, so that he's not forced to become a violent criminal in order to save his wife.


Maybe he should lobby government to put a reasonable limit on drug profits so that life saving medicine in not the exclusive domain of the rich?

Remember the story also explains that the husband went throght much effort to meet the druggists demands . . . certainly the druggist has a right to make a profit, but he also owns a debt to society for providing him the opportunity to make a profit . . . gouging society is not, IMO, a good way to pay back society for all it has provided.

[ 25 February 2004: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 February 2004 03:04 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe he should lobby government to put a reasonable limit on drug profits so that life saving medicine in not the exclusive domain of the rich?

Agreed. In fact it makes me wonder why there are no Pharmaceutical crown corporations? Seems like it would be a nice offshoot of socialized medicine.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 25 February 2004 03:29 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Agreed. In fact it makes me wonder why there are no Pharmaceutical crown corporations? Seems like it would be a nice offshoot of socialized medicine.

Aren't groups like Apotex and Eli Lilly already participating in a regulated oligopolistic market?

[ 25 February 2004: Message edited by: paxamillion ]


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 February 2004 04:24 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Watch it worker_drone. You're askin' for a rolly-eye!

Kindly refer to the rolly-eye chronology on this thread Magoo.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 February 2004 04:41 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But my rolly-eye had words, written by me, beside it. It was like pepper on your steak. Yours is just a whole meal of pepper. :) <-- old school
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 February 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, it was more like pepper on my Jell-O.

C'mon, Mr. M. Earnestness is so unlike you.

Didn't you find it odd that anyone would advocate beating someone into submission with a stick as a way of answering a rigged question regarding morality?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 25 February 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Since the pharmacist is already making 500% profit and since the man offered to pay the balance later, I don't see that he has much choice but to steal it (and not get caught of course). Lobbying the government or health companies can take forever. Not enough time. OK, now I'll read the link.
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 February 2004 05:22 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Didn't you find it odd that anyone would advocate beating someone into submission with a stick as a way of answering a rigged question
regarding morality?

I've stopped being suprised at just what some people would do to an evil capitalist if given the chance. Anyway, if you were only being facetious then it's my bad.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 25 February 2004 05:46 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Since the pharmacist is already making 500% profit

How do you figure this? Because he's charging 500 times the cost of raw materials? Do you have any idea of the costs associated in conducting clinical trials and bringing a new drug to market?


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 25 February 2004 06:37 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, but if we had to take that into consideration, then we'd have to take into account the fear and suffering associated with cancer and death!!
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 25 February 2004 07:06 PM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well as Qa'bong noted, just bash the guy and use the drug. But that's only if you love your wife.

Must Heinz be the standard bearer for Socialism® or Capitalism® ?

Let's get to the point. What is it, anyway?

[ 25 February 2004: Message edited by: Tolok ]


From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 February 2004 07:17 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I dunno, that morality isn't black or white?

Decisions are tough, and that the right thing do do isn't always easy to discern?

Some people like to profit from the misery of others?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 25 February 2004 07:23 PM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And your point is?
From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 25 February 2004 07:24 PM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry, I didn't make one, either.
From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 26 February 2004 11:56 AM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The thing about this question is that nothing is at stake for the druggist, except profit or remaking what he spent on discovering the drug. If Heinz steals the drug, the druggist only lost out on profits, whereas the wife is saved.

I can see where it would be a dilemma for those who value single instance profits as equal to a human life.

Plus, if this B&E is Heinz's first offence, I'm sure the judge will be lenient, considering the circumstances and all.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 February 2004 12:07 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I can see where it would be a dilemma for those who value single instance profits as equal to a human life.

I usually admire your posts, but this line is simplistic at best. I don't think anyone, here or anywhere else, would try to simply equate a human life with $1800. But there is a greater principle here. Do you have an innate "right" to something I have, just because you feel you need it? Certainly this question has been constructed so as to give the maximum consternation for the buck, but we could have as easily described another situation to test the validity of either opinion.

"Bob currently owes $10,000 in gambling debts, and a local loanshark has threatened to kill him if he doesn't pay up. He has no job, but his neighbour seems to work hard and is doing alright. Is it ethical for Bob to rob his neighbour, in order to save his own life?"

Now the question isn't tainted by sentimental feelings for the poor sick wife, nor by profits on the part of the neighbour. Really, all we're asking now is "is the neighbour a partner in Bob's misfortune?".


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 26 February 2004 12:14 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Totally differenet situation . . . Bob can go to the police and report his problem. Bob knowingly got himself into his problem by breaking the law for no other reason than his own entertainment.

Heinz already went to all potential mainstream sources of help for his problem, and his problem was not caused by breaking the law in the first place.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 26 February 2004 12:20 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If Bob rats on the loan shark, it might actually increase the probability of his death. You are right that Bob's case does require professional intervention though -- including, perhaps, treatment for compulsive gambling.

But steal from the neighbour? Although this might be what an addict would do, it's not right as far as I'm concerned.

I wonder if Heinz could claim a necessity defense if he stole the medication.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 February 2004 12:41 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Bob knowingly got himself into his problem by breaking the law for no other reason than his own entertainment.

There's a lot of assumptions there. Who knows? Maybe Heinz' wife contracted cancer after eating an unhealthy amount of smoked foods. Maybe Bob only gambled once in his life, and lost. Anyway, gambling and borrowing money aren't illegal, are they?

quote:
I wonder if Heinz could claim a necessity defense if he stole the medication.

Hmm.. I suspect that any society that didn't regard this new Cancer cure as "necessary" for all wouldn't accept a plea of necessity from someone who stole it.

Anyway, we seem to agree that the neighbour, in my example, is NOT a partner in Bob's misfortune. He doesn't share in Bob's gains, he has no input into Bob's choices, therefore he shouldn't be on the hook to pay for Bob's losses.

Return to Heinz. How is the druggist a partner in Heinz' misfortune? Certainly it would be nice if he handed over the medicine for free, or at cost, or put the formula in the public domain, but if he hasn't, under what grounds would you argue that he must?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 26 February 2004 12:46 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

There's a lot of assumptions there. Who knows? Maybe Heinz' wife contracted cancer after eating an unhealthy amount of smoked foods. Maybe Bob only gambled once in his life, and lost. Anyway, gambling and borrowing money aren't illegal, are they?


Just the other day my banker threathened to kill me if I missed my loan payment

Of course we are generalizing here, but generally speaking, having cancer is not the same as having a loan shark chasing you!!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 26 February 2004 12:56 PM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Kill the loan shark and appropriate his funds, extract cartilage from his remains, and fly Mrs Heinz to a clinic in Mexico. That might work.
From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 February 2004 01:01 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're not taking this seriously Tolok! If Mrs. Heinz dies, it'll be on your head!
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 February 2004 01:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ha! Who was the first one on this thread to take a facetious solution to the problem and get annoyed over the "violent" solution?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tolok
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4934

posted 26 February 2004 01:08 PM      Profile for Tolok        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, did i neglect to mention the insurance policy?
From: Out of Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 26 February 2004 04:53 PM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mr.Magoo is right in that I did make it overly simplistic. But isn't that the crux of the argument? Which rights ought we to respect: official legal/property rights versus ad hoc human cases.

oh I think I get it now. It is unravelling a bit in my head. If everyone was a Heinz, then the incentive to become a druggist would be diminished? Of course that comes back to the right that the druggist has to hold a desperate man hostage for profit.

I feel like a dog chasing its tail! Philosophical dilemmas always do make me dizzy.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 29 February 2004 09:27 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is one aspect to this case that nobody has examined. Is the drug a cure, or will Heinz's wife require continuous treatment in order to survive? Since she is described as having cancer, I would suspect the latter. In this case, stealing a dose of the drug will not save her, though it might buy her some time. Problem is, he's very unlikely to be able to steal it more than once, then he'll go to jail and his wife will die. After all, the suspect list for such a crime will be extremely short. If those are the only two choices, the overall effect on the community will be worse if he steals it than if he does not.

Of course, if instead of stealing the drug he robs a bank in the next town and uses the money to buy the drug, there might be a better chance of saving her, since he's more likely to get away with it (lots of people have a motive to rob a bank, while very few have a motive to steal the drug itself). He'd buy her some time which would allow him to raise the money to buy the next dose- and if that still fails, time to rob another bank...


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 29 February 2004 02:08 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oooooookay....I'm guessing people didn't check out the link. Its on gender differenecs in moral decision making - people tend to hear and interpret the question differently by gender. Men tend to focus on the abstract concept (SHOULD Heinz steal the drug) whereas women tend to have a relational and connected understanding of the problem (Should Heinz STEAL the drug).

I answered like a man...though I am biologically and socially a woman. However, women with higher levels of education tend to more often answer like "men." I just think the issue is interesting.

Though let the filty capitalist bashing continue!


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 29 February 2004 02:42 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting the subtle valuation of the two styles:

icky: men's abstract meatheaded understanding of morality. Eww, abstract! Boy cooties!

happy-flower-wonderful: women's relational and connected understanding of morality. Yay! Relational! Connected! Spray perfume everywhere!

I tend to answer that the woman's life matters more, and in the real world, anyway, the situations are rarely that stark. I guess that puts me in the happy-flower-wonderful category on this.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 29 February 2004 07:19 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What we are really seeing here is the old utilitarianism vs. natural rights debate, with the utilitarian approach being claimed to correlate with femaleness and the natural rights approach with maleness. I tend to fall on the utilitarian side, for what it's worth.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca