About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

Kizzy · 03-05-2012, 08:04 PM

In Europe, 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 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 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 the husband have done that?
(moral reasoning experiment)

What would you do?

Mystic Mock · 03-05-2012, 08:08 PM

I would steal it as what a rip off price that is and the druggist should be ashamed of himself if it was real.

Vicky. · 03-05-2012, 08:09 PM

I cant say wether or not the man should have done that, its down to each person and their morals I guess.

However I would definitely do it, without a second thought.

Niall · 03-05-2012, 08:10 PM

I would definitely do it if I was in the same situation. Its still breaking the law of course and I'd acknowledge that, but I'm sure not many people would be peeved given how much of a nasty ass the drug maker is acting.

Niamh. · 03-05-2012, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I cant say wether or not the man should have done that, its down to each person and their morals I guess.

However I would definitely do it, without a second thought.

This.

Vicky. · 03-05-2012, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niall

I would definitely do it if I was in the same situation. Its still breaking the law of course and I'd acknowledge that, but I'm sure not many people would be peeved given how much of a nasty ass the drug maker is acting.

That wouldnt make a difference to me either. If someone I loved was dying and there was a cure but I couldnt afford it, I would find a way to get it no matter what. If this meant I had to steal it/the money to get it, so be it.

joeysteele · 03-05-2012, 08:15 PM

I never normally condone law breaking but if you really loved someone and for the act of breaking into somewhere and getting something absolutely guaranteed to save their life, then the law would be worth breaking for that in my opinion and so I would likely do it.

The druggist sounds in that scenario a truly rotten fellow so I guess I wouldn't have any thought as to him, the survival of my loved one would be all I would be able to think of.

GypsyGoth · 03-05-2012, 08:16 PM

What would I do?

I would kill the druggist and rob him.

Josy · 03-05-2012, 08:17 PM

I would steal it yes.

The drug maker is only doing what all big pharmaceutical companies do though.

Kizzy · 03-05-2012, 08:17 PM

I think my answer would be I would be forced to steal it to save a life, as it is in my eyes more immoral of the druggist to deny treatment when he is aware of the consequences than the theft of the treatment.

Mrluvaluva · 03-05-2012, 08:51 PM

I don't think I could stand by and watch a loved one die when I knew there was a cure available. If I had the opportunity to steal the drug, I would do so without hesitation. I would have no problem with someone doing so either, and would fully support their actions, as it is the druggists own personal greed that could deny someone their life, which I feel is morally wrong.

I would hope and trust the law would be understanding and lenient with me for my actions though....

Livia · 03-05-2012, 08:55 PM

The chemist would already have sold it to a pharmaceuticals company for a squillion quid and the pharmaceuticals company would be selling it on for ten times what the chemist was charging.