A Moral Dilemma by Kohlberg

In Europe a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered.  The druggist was charging $2,000, ten times what the drug cost him to make.  The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about 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."  The husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.  Should the husband have done that? Why?

I was given this moral dilemma in 11th grade by my English teacher.  I recently read it in my educational psychology textbook while learning about Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning, and thought I might make a blog post out of it.

Okay, so Heinz's wife is near death from cancer.  This is not a new scenario to most of us.  We know cancer exists, we know people get it, and we know there really is no cure but that it can go into remission if treated effectively and in time.  A key word I see in this scenario is that the drug might save her; it's not guaranteed.  Also, do the townspeople know that the druggist is charging ten times what it cost him to make the drug?  The above paragraph does not specify whether anyone besides the druggist knows how much the drug costs to make, it only tells us the fact that he's charging an exorbitant amount.

It shows a lack of compassion on the druggist's part that he will not work with Heinz even after he explains that his wife is dying.  If they live in the same town, assuming the town is small enough that everyone kind of knows everyone else, the druggist should already know this information to be true.  At the same time, the druggist has to make a living.  How many people really have cancer in this town?  How well-known is this druggist's new drug?  Does he really even have a market to sell his discovery in yet?  Did he go into a large amount of debt while researching this new drug?  If so, he now has a pile of debt to pay back and that may be why he's charging so much for the drug.

It was wrong of Heinz to break into the druggist's store and steal the drug.  His wife may still die if the drug doesn't work, he'll go to jail for burglary and theft, and then even if the drug does work, who will be left to take care of his wife while she recovers?

The risks really don't out-weigh the benefits here because Heinz most likely won't get away with the theft.  The druggist knows Heinz wants the drug and when the druggist told Heinz he wouldn't sell it to him for a cheaper price and he wouldn't work with him, I'm sure the two men had heated words before Heinz left the store.  The druggist's first suspicion will most likely be Heinz and I'm sure he'll tell that information to the authorities.  On top of that, the only way Heinz could escape being caught would be to run.  He can't take his wife since, if she's close to death, she's most likely bed ridden and can't travel.  If he runs, then, he'll be leaving his wife alone with no caretaker, and that move is completely hypocritical to the action he just took by breaking the law to get her medication.

In any case, Heinz was wrong to steal from the druggist for a slew of reasons.

If anyone else would like to take a stab at this moral dilemma, leave it in a comment below!