# data[].attributes.body
·        Do you think it is right for Heinz to steal to save his wife's life? – in short no he was not right to steal for any cause

·        Why do you think Heinz wanted to try and save his wife by breaking and stealing? Love was overriding his moral compass

·        What do you think he should have done instead? Came to a payment arrangement with the chemist

# data[].attributes.body
These are some very difficult questions to answer. I can see both sides of the story when it comes to the first question in particular.

Love makes people desperate enough to do things they would never otherwise do.

However this is where it becomes a question of what is right and wrong especially with regards to morality vs. the law. Whilst I can see by the standard thought process that what Heinz did was wrong, I can see why he would feel driven to do so and it wasn't for selfish or criminal reasons.

The only alternative choices I can see available to Heinz (other than just letting his wife die) are either to further bargain with the supplier or to look at other ways to raise the money required. Of course neither of these choices are guaranteed success and I don't know the time the wife had left.

I believe the really immoral character in this story was the chemist but unfortunately ruthless business people can and do exist in the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Heinz was only doing what any loving partner would do when faced with the same circumstances.
The questions posed are based on societal norms. Stealing is bad etc. Does the druggist have a moral obligation to help his fellow man? If it was about the money should he have taken the $1k and allowed the man to pay the rest off. The answers to these would depend on whose moral norm you were coming from. If you asked a pharmaceutical executive he would back the druggist all the way. If you asked Mother Teresa she would be outraged.

# data[].attributes.body
Do you think it is right for Heinz to steal to save his wife's life?

Technically no he was not right. He broke the law. But morally the immoral actions of the druggist inturned cause those actions from Heinz.

Why do you think Heinz wanted to try and save his wife by breaking and stealing?

The druggist had immoral intentions when selling the drug for such an inflated price. Heinz felt he had no other choice.

What do you think he should have done instead?

Instead, if Heinz has enough time, he could have tried to break down the laws that allowed the durggist to sell the drug at such an expensive prive. He could have also found other legal ways of raising the money like crowd funding or getting a loan from a bank.

- Shaileigh Foster

# data[].attributes.body
By the end of this week, I’m sure that I’ll have a more educated understanding of moral dilemmas. However, the description of the activity asks that I respond prior to beginning any other activities, so I guess I’ll be using my own moral compass for this one!

There are so many variables and unknowns in this dilemma of Heinz’s.

·       What era are Heinz and his wife living in?

·       What part of Europe do they live in?

·       Are there Government policies to provide support in situations such as this one?

·       What will the punishment be for Heinz? A 12 month good behaviour bond, or having his hand amputated and being sent to a penal colony in Van Diemen’s Land?

·       What does “Near death” mean? Is Heinz’s wife’s life expectancy without the treatment days, weeks, months?

·       How many treatments with this drug will she need? Will Heinz need to steal again?

·       Do they live in an era that has the potential to draw media attention?

Perhaps I’m complicating things for myself.  Assuming that Heinz had exhausted all other options, and his wife would die in a matter of weeks without this drug, if I were him, I’d steal the drug.

# data[].attributes.body
Being that this drug was his wife's last hope, I can understand the desperation which lead him to steal the drug... I feel if Heinz felt he had another choice he would have taken the opportunity to do so.

Could Heinz have attempted to further reason with the druggist and arrange a repayment option?

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the decision Heinz made to steal in order to save his wives life although it was illegal. I can say in certainty that I would have done the same thing if I was in his shoes.

Heinz did not want to break in and steal, but once he was denied help by being able to pay it off later he felt as though he had no other choice.

It's hard to say that Heinz could have done anything else to resolve the issue as his wife may have only had a few weeks to live and this was a last resort. If there was more time he could have perhaps got a loan from the bank or did fundraising to gather the money.

- Courtney Micallef-Young

# data[].attributes.body
It is unfair to judge the action Heinz took as none of us are in his situation. Heinz weighed risk and reward and decided his punishment for stealing was worth keeping his wife alive. Heinz more than likely wanted to save his wife's life as this option was available, regardless of its cost or the attitude of its creator regarding payment. His motivation could be he felt this was the least he could do for his wife, or he couldn't bear the thought of life without her, or a combination of both. I have no opinion on what he should have done instead and could not fairly comment unless I was in his position.

# data[].attributes.body
It seems that Heinz felt he had no other option in his desperation to save his dying wife. This 'miracle' cure may have felt like his one and only attempt to cure her cancer. Thinking of what I would do in this situation and if it was a loved one of mine. If I had exhausted all other options (another pharmacist, supplier etcetera) I would be temp to do as Heinz did and steal the life saving drug. I don't think it is the right choice but one can do 'not usual' things when desperate. He was probably not thinking straight as all too consumed by his offer being rejected by the pharmacist. He should have gone back to the Doctor or found another pharmacist, put together a community lobby group to support his cause - but it seems he did and as nothing helped him get the drug for his dying wife - he felt he had no other option.

# data[].attributes.body
Stealing is as we all know against the law, however when people are desperate to try and save people they love reasoning is very blurred. I think Heinz could have tried lobbying government or a medical person of some description to help him find a way to reduce the cost.
-Domenique Dillon

# data[].attributes.body
I fully support Heinz decision, illegal though they are. He had no choices available to him at the time (presuming urgency) but does have choices after the fact.

An absolute statement that it is always wrong to break the law has been challenged throughout the history of modern law – that’s one way that the law evolves, by challenge. In this instance, he is likely to be prosecuted for theft (and arguably should be) but there is also an opportunity to raise the question of commercial sale of drugs and their regulation. Garnering institutional and public support through lobby groups or other interest groups is one pathway. The druggist should also have the opportunity to argue his case.

Heinz’ may have judged that personal risk, if he has no previous history, is low as he is unlikely to be imprisoned for this. On balance, the health of his wife versus punishment is an understandable choice.

It's worth reflecting on the recent case of Martin Shkreli and his hijacking of the market for Daraprim in the US. Can his actions be defended in any way other than sustaining of rampant 'market forces'? I think there are similarities here.

NB I understand that the the actual process of law is more complicated!

Graham Coffey

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think that it is "right" for Heinz to steal in order to save his wife's life. However, I can understand that he would have felt desperate in such a situation and would have made that decision to break in and steal so that she could receive the treatment that she needed. Perhaps he could have contacted other agencies that might have been able to help the situation by finding alternative funding or guidance.  I appreciate that it's all very well to express these opinions in the "safety" of an academic setting but the reality of the situation would be much harder.

Liz Di Nucci

# data[].attributes.body
I think that what Heinz did was wrong as stealing is against the law, but he was a desperate man. He tried to do the right thing and raise the funds needed but was unable to obtain the amount required. I assume Heinz loves his wife very much and wasn't going to let her die when there was something that could be used to save her life. Having his wife close to death I could only imagine how desperate he would have been feeling. I don't think there was much else Heinz could have done legally to obtain this special medication.
-Katie Berryman

# data[].attributes.body
The husband did the right thing and I think if he saves his wife you will have a hard time convincing him other wise. He tried to do the right thing, He tried to gather the correct amount of money, and he tried to reason with the salesman but the salesman was interested in nothing but his capitalist values. I value the life of a human more than I value upholding capitalism.

The only problem I have with him stealing is that he stole from a small business not a big business but he did what he had to do to save a life. Capitalism is a morally bankrupt system so why should the man let his wife die to uphold it?
-Molly Degner

# data[].attributes.body
I think that it is wrong for HHet

# data[].attributes.body
No, it is not right for Heinz to steal to save his wife.
Heinz was distressed and suffering with the prospect of loosing the woman he loves and made an irrational decision in his distressed state.  He may have felt backed into a corner with no other option.  He may have thought he "had to try something" or that he "wouldn't forgive himself if he didn't try something."
Heinz should have sought advice from a friend or family member - or his doctor to see if there were any other options available to him.  His advisors would have been his 'voice of reason' in his unreasonable frame of mind at the time.
- Julia Papasidero

# data[].attributes.body
Morally anyone would want to save a family member's life, but there are ways to go about it. Stealing is not a way. It is a Criminal Offence, and you would be charged no matter what the offence entailed.
I understand that Heinz was trying to save his wife's life, by asking the Druggist if he could purchase the drug cheaper and to be able to pay him later, considering the Druggist was making ten times the amount of what it cost to make in the first place.
Heinz at least tried to raise the money, but in the end could only raise $1,000, which was only half of what was needed.
I felt that the Druggist lacked compassion and empathy and turned to greed instead.
Heinz should of asked the Doctor if there was any voluntary program he could place his wife into to see if this drug would work. I know in our hospitals here, they have different trial programs.
Approach the Government to see if there was any way he could be subsidised, towards the contribution of the drug.
The next best thing Heinz should of done, is ask all their family members for help and perhaps see what items he could sell to gain the amount needed.
Family come first and I'm sure there would be members of the family that would help.
If there was no help for my family to save one of my grandchildren, I would not hesitate to sell my property. In the end a property is just a place to own and reside in, but a life is a gift that is precious.

# data[].attributes.body
while legally this is wrong for the man to break into the man's house and steal the product because he doesn't have the money is it morally wrong? the only thing that can save his wife, the man overcharging, he worked hard to get as much money as possible but it still wasn't enough.
now who can say they wouldn't do the same thing for a loved one, i know i would. if i knew that my brother could be saved by this drug and knew that it was being sold for more than it should then i would do anything i could to get my hands on the one thing that could save him.
now i think that if the man who had broken in had left the money he had so far and gotten the man the other half as he could then maybe the man would have forgiven, people can surprise you.

# data[].attributes.headline
I agree with everyone else's posts here.  Legally wrong, two wrongs do not make a right, he should not have stolen the drug, the druggist is immoral etc.  

# data[].attributes.subject
I agree with everyone else's posts here.  Legally wrong, two wrongs do not make a right, he should not have stolen the drug, the druggist is immoral etc.  

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that stealing just because you want something you can not have is wrong.  However, stealing something you know will save a loved ones life, is OK with me.  If it was my child/loved one sick and that was my only option, I would not hesitate to make the same decision.
I probably would have left the $1000 in the house and taken the drug!

# data[].attributes.body
POST CONVENTIONAL STAGE
I think that morally, if faced with the same situation, I may have stolen the drug too. Obviously it is illegal but I guess I would weigh up the ramifications of not stealing the drug and losing a loved one or stealing the drug, potentially saving a loved one and spending time in prison for it.
I think that he knew that the druggist was acting immorally and was knowingly withholding the drug that could save his wifes life.  So he took it!
I believe that the ideal way he should have gone about it would be to contact the authorities and appropriate people involved in regulating drugs and drug prices and ask for their assistance.  The would have pressured the druggist to lower the price and make it more accessible.

# data[].attributes.body
POST-CONVENTIONAL STAGE
Legally, stealing is wrong and depending on the country of origin, the punishment for the crime may be exorbitant and enacted regardless of the motivation. In our current society, the intent behind a crime is a key focus for conviction so it is likely that in this instance, Heinz would be let off with a slap on the wrist and the druggist would face public outcry and pressure to lower prices e.g. Martin Shkreli. Heinz's motivations are morally correct because his purpose was to save a life, however, stealing is ethically, legally AND morally wrong according to society so the ends do not justify the means unless his wife was 100% saved and Heinz adhered to any punishment associated with his crime. To be far, although I can understand this argument objectively - personally I would break a whole lot of legal, ethical and moral codes in order to save my other half because you can't buy love

# data[].attributes.body
It was absolutely wrong in the legal sense for Heinz to break in and steal the drug for his wife. Morally, just because he has a reason or an excuse to do something, it does not mean that he should do it. If everyone in our society did that we would live in more chaos than we currently can imagine. It was wrong to do, just as it was wrong of the chemist to increase the price beyond the level of affordability but two wrongs do not make a right. And if his wife did not live regardless, what would happen to any children they might have together? If she dies because this drug is only a 'might save her' not a 'will save her' and he goes to prison because he broke the law, what has he taught his children and what is to become of them?
I understand the desire to save a partner regardless of the cost, and the story says he tried a lot to raise the money but I feel like his decision came from less of a desire to help his wife and more from the point that he wanted to assuage his conscience that he had done all he could. That's a tricky situation and without knowing all involved personally of course there is no way of judging impartially. Everyone will have preconceived notions about what is and isn't acceptable.
Maybe he thought he couldn't live without her, maybe he wanted to 'get back' at the chemist for charging such a ridiculous price, but the fact is, is that it was wrong by our societal laws and standards regardless of personal morals. By begging, by trying to raise the money and asking to pay later, he tried all he could legally. Anything else requires changes to our society and the laws that govern us because it is only by living within those rules that society can be considered a success.
I feel that he could have offered to work for the chemist to pay off the remaining $1000 but without knowing him personally and his circumstances it is very difficult to say what more he should have done instead.
Sarah Wherry

# data[].attributes.body
It is wrong and illegal to steal the drug. However in my opinion the druggist was acting immorally, and to save his wife i believe he was right to steal the drug. The druggist was acting immorally and making the drug too expensive, he could have easily made a profit by making the drug less expensive but his greed made him take more.

I think Heinz made the decision to steal because of his desperation to save his wife. He did not want to lose his emotional connection to his wife and the druggist could not be reasoned with. I believe that if i was in his position i too would have chosen the same outcome to save the person I loved.
-Sarah Garton Haworth

# data[].attributes.body
Legally it’s wrong to steal, regardless of the reason. However, the druggist was acting immorally. It is also ethically still wrong to steal even if he was stealing to save his wife. We teach children that “two wrongs don’t make a right”. It’s not specific about country, but the only person acting illegally is the man who steals the drug. Martin Shkreli who raised the priced of Daraprim from $13.5 to $750 per pill in 2015, although he received widespread criticism, he was acting legally.
Martin Shkreli eventually lowered the price of Daraprim due to public anger. This would be a good tactic for Heinz to use to help his wife. Appeal to the public and the media and bring negative attention to the druggist and force him to lower the price due to pressure from the public.
Heinz wanted to steal the drug to save the life of his wife. We all want to save the people we love and feel we have a duty of care to do whatever it takes. I know it’s ethically and legally wrong to steal. However, if I felt I had no choice, I would steal to save the life of a person I love.
Keira Casey

# data[].attributes.body
Legally it is wrong to break in and steal anything regardless of the circumstances. However I can see why Heniz wanted to steal the medicine as his wife was dying and he was desperate.

I think Heinz resorted to breaking in and stealing the medicine as he felt there was no other hope for his wife seeing as he couldn't come up with the money needed to buy it and the druggist refused to sell it to him cheaper.

While it's hard to think of what else he could have done in this situation as no one knows how long his wife had left, I would suggest he could have asked the druggist again to sell it to him cheaper or to try and find more money.

# data[].attributes.headline
We have very limited information on the druggist and their personal circumstance other than he wants to make money from the medicine-  not what or why he needs the money,  what if he also had to support a sick family member? 

# data[].attributes.subject
We have very limited information on the druggist and their personal circumstance other than he wants to make money from the medicine-  not what or why he needs the money,  what if he also had to support a sick family member? 

# data[].attributes.body
Should the husband be able to rob him of his livelihood?  On the surface it looks opportunistic and wrong but that's because we know only Heinz's side of the story- and of course I personally sympathize with him and would probably also attempt to steal the medicine for a loved one, but that doesn't make it right.

# data[].attributes.headline
Whilst I cannot condone his actions of stealing, I can understand his desperation to want to save his wife. The cure so close yet so far. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Whilst I cannot condone his actions of stealing, I can understand his desperation to want to save his wife. The cure so close yet so far. 

# data[].attributes.body
Heinz did not feel he had any other option and given his love for his wife, he did the one thing he knew he could do to save her.
I am not sure I can answer the last question, it is easy to say he should have tried to find the extra money but this may not have been possible. Perhaps he could have tried once again to plead with the druggist but this also seems futile as he had explained the situation previously. Even though Heinz morally did the wrong this in this case, I could not judge a person for doing as he did.
S. Turner

# data[].attributes.body
At a legal level, of course it was wrong for Heinz to break in and steal the drug. But I can understand in times of desperation, he would have thought this was the only way to get the help needed. While the druggist was wrong for making the drug so impossibly expensive, Heinz shouldn't have broken in and stolen the drug.
- Claire Patterson

# data[].attributes.body
Legally it is wrong for Heinz to steal the drug. If everyone was to act in this manner we would live in a chaotic world.

Although, I can absolutely see that Heinz must have felt desperate and that this was his only option. If I felt my only option was to steal to save my husband’s life, I would do it without a second (moral) thought.

Heinz really should have tried to explore other options such as a bank loan, fundraising, begging, finding other work or approaching the local political leader for assistance to legislate the drug as government subsidised. Although it seems harsh under the circumstances, the drug manufacturer is within his legal rights to set a price for his product and to not accept credit. I think both Heinz and the drug manufacturer faced a moral dilemma here.

# data[].attributes.body
Breaking in and stealing the drug was not ok by law. The druggist that discovered the drug was also not in the right by making the drug so expensive that it made it near impossible for everyday people to afford it. Unfortunately there is no law against this.
Desperation creates responses in people that are out of usual character. Heinz may have done the wrong thing by law but was it not the best thing for his wife? The desperation he must have felt would have blocked of his rational regarding future consequences of his actions.
I believe the only reason Heinz broke in was because he had exhausted all options. He could have tried another round of asking friends or gone to the bank for a loan.

# data[].attributes.body
I posed this question to my two children, ages 8 and 5.
My 8 year old replied with a resounding "NO!". His reasoning - it is against the law to steal!
My 5 year old thought for a bit and said, "No, because it's not his shop to steal from."
Both evidently in the Pre-conventional level on the moral ladder!

# data[].attributes.headline
Was it ok for Heinz to steal a life saving dug?

# data[].attributes.subject
Was it ok for Heinz to steal a life saving dug?

# data[].attributes.body
I can as I believe most other people would that Heinz did this because he was desperate. When people are desperate they do things that they normally wouldn't conceive doing. It wasn't right for him to steal but it is understandable. He stole because it was his only option he thought he had left to save his wife from dying. I think he should have got media attention and gone to his local MP. He could have started a charity page and got their story out there. Did he try a bank loan or credit card? There are many options before breaking the law. Even in the most desperate situations.

In the Post conventional level on the moral ladder

# data[].attributes.body
Do you think it is right for Heinz to steal to save his wife's life?

That depends on the person's interpretation of right and wrong. Do I believe it is against the law to break and enter and steal someone else's property? Yes. Do I believe it is morally wrong to let someone die knowing you could help save their life? Yes. But other's won't necessarily believe the same. It all comes down to the interpretation of right and wrong. I think Heinz believed that he had exhausted all possible avenues of helping his wife and this was his only option. He believed the ends justified the means.

Why do you think Heinz wanted to try and save his wife by breaking and stealing?

As mentioned above, he felt he had tried everything he could in order to help his wife. Breaking the law was his only option left. How can you sit by someone you love and watch them die, knowing you could have helped saved them if you had only taken the drug needed to save their life?

What do you think he should have done instead?

I don't think Heinz should have done anything else. He exhausted all possible options available to him. Time was an issue in saving his wife's life. There might not have been time to waste protesting the drug maker, taking him to court, getting public support, etc. Had I been Heinz, I would have done the same thing. I know it is wrong to steal, but it is far worse to watch someone I love die without trying everything I could to save them. I would happily go to prison for theft if that meant my loved one lived or died.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think it is right for Heinz to steal to save his wife's life. Two wrong's don't make a right. Heinz was desperate and faced with the high possibility that his wife was going to die. In Heinz's mind, he would probably prefer to go to prison for stealing, or hope for a sympathetic judge and support from his community, than live a life without his wife. If it were an option, I would have suggested that Heinz apply for a loan however logic suggests that he would have tried this already. He possibly could have opted to take legal action against the pharmacist but legal battles are often lengthy and don't always result in favour of the little guy. I admit that I would likely commit the same crime if faced with this ordeal.

# data[].attributes.body
I would have to say that the creator of the medicine should be ashamed of himself to think that way..I understand from a business perspective, he is looking to profit from his creations as much as possible. But from a moral perspective, no amount of money can replace a human life. There will always be potential for profit making in the future, but once a life is gone, its gone forever.

As for Heinz, stealing is wrong. But in his position and frame of mind, stealing would likely have been the last thing he was worried about. I do think there could have been other options open to Heinz that would have been more acceptable both morally and legally. But i haven't been in that position so i don't believe it would be right for me to judge him on his actions.

# data[].attributes.body
Firstly, that druggist is a disgusting man to take advantage of people's sufferings for profit.
It is absolutely NOT alright for Heinz to steal to save his wife's life. It is breaking the law and could end in his imprisonment which would be devastating for his wife. Heinz was obviously driven to steal by feelings of hopelessness and desperation. What he could have done, perhaps, was to seek advice from the medical professionals as to what was available for her treatment that wouldn't result in huge dollars being spent. He could have also checked the law regarding the power the druggist had on bumping up the price so high.