an ethical dilemma

[gnutmeg]

I need primary research (aka, to ask people) for my ethics assignment, so I'm going to ask for all your help. Please read the following paragraph and give me your honest answer and reasoning behind it. The more answers and opinions I get on this, the more it will help me with this assignment. So please, if you don't mind...

A child was near death with a rare virus. The only drug that might save him had recently been developed by a local doctor. The doctor had spent a great deal of time and money developing the drug and was charging ten times as much for it ($1,000) as it cost him to make it ($100). The boy’s father didn’t have enough money to buy it, even after trying as hard as he could to borrow the money. He asked the doctor to sell it to him at half the price or let him pay on credit, but the doctor refused. The father was desperate and stole the drug from the doctor’s office.

Ethical issue: Was the father right or wrong to steal the drug?

Comments

[canadabear.livejournal.com]

I am going to assume the rights to the drug belong to the doctor, since that point wasn't covered in the example.

Based on that, I say the father was wrong. The drug belongs to the doctor and he has the right to decide what is to be done with it, who he sells it to and for what price. Whether or not I agree with the doctor refusing to make any allowances is irrelevant to the example. The father is breaking a law, not the doctor.

[twiztednwarped.livejournal.com]

There were two wrongs commited here, though only one is backed by law.

The first wrong was the father for in his desperation lost sight of the laws that we have established. He took something that was not consented to him and thus commited a wrong.

However, the doctor has commited wrong as well. Charging such an outlandish price for the drug is unethical. Why create something that in it's essence is designed to help people if you are not going to make it available to the people that need it? A fools errand, that. Also the unwillingness to comprimise was a crime against humanity itself. The duty of any medical professional is to help other people with your knowledge, Period. Not to make money. When others are suffering it should be your moral and spiritual obligation to aleviate that suffering. Even if it means taking a loss, as long as the loss will not create more suffering (I.E. putting you into a homeless shelter) and he wasn't even taking said loss. He could have charged $150 for the drug, yet he chose not to.

Hope this helps, wifey.

[zeli17.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think he was perfectly justified. Stealing out of necessity is not nearly so horrendous in my mind.

[zeli17.livejournal.com]

Mine's really short.... but yea. I don't have much to add. Personally I don't steal, but if I needed something that badly to save someone I could explain myself in court and feel justified were I caught.

[zero-butterfly.livejournal.com]

He was wrong to steal it. I can see WHY he did, as I could never imagine anything more horrendous than my child being deathly ill, but it was still morally and ethically wrong.

Sure, the doctor was acting unethically too, by charging so much for the medicine, but unfortunately the old saying rings true, two wrongs do not make a right.

If it's not yours, and you take it without consent, that is theft, and wrong.

/My two cents.

[nepenthes59.livejournal.com]

I think I would flunk the class... LOL

Suppose the Dr. offered the medicine for Free, but the father was a Christian Scientist & didn't believe in using the drug?

ahh Situational ethics bite

I guess I would say go ahead & steal the drugs

[fallenfromchair.livejournal.com]

The father wasn't wrong. Looking at it from the point of view of a prosecuter, you could say that stealing is a crime. But an easily arguable defense is that he did it in defense of his son, as the outrageous price and lack of cooperation. To the father, the doctor was basically threatening his son's life, and that's a valid legal defense.

From the POV of ethics and moral, the father was not in the wrong, what he did was justified and the doctor was wrong for overcharging for his drug- it's exceptionally unethical, especially for a doctor.

[moonclock.livejournal.com]

Legally, the father was wrong - obviously. Ethically, the doctor was wrong. I personally value human life above all things (does this make me Humanist? I'm not sure) and as such, valuing his lost $500 over the life of a child (a child! They've barely even lived!) was a very ethically wrong thing for that doctor to do. Material possessions and money come way, way below the life of a human (especially a child) on my importance list.

Does that help? ^^

[jinjja.livejournal.com]

... are we talking legally, or ethically? Legally the father was wrong as the drug belongs to the doctor ...

But ethically and morally? The father was right to steal it. A doctor's primary goal should be to HELP people, not to make money. Yes, being a doctor is a profession, but its the profession of saving lives. The father had, or so it seems, exhausted all other options, and this was the last option left to save his child.

I don't see how that's wrong >.> Fuck the law :P And the doctor should have shown a bit of compassion too, and tried to reach a compromise with the father.

And what's the point of even making the drug if you're going to inflate the prices so radically, causing the DEATH of the VERY PEOPLE the drug is for?

[vampyricdreams.livejournal.com]

Ethically its the doctor thats in the wrong. Doctors are supposed to save life by all means. If there is a way then it should be done, especially as the father was willing to pay he just could not pay all of it right at that moment. By a doctor denying the man the medicine he was in a form, committing the child to death. Murder in a second hand way. He didnt do what it was a doctor is supposed to do.

Legally of course stealing is stealing, regardless of the means. But Ethically I see the doctor as being in the wrong. Going against what it is doctors are trained to do, causing death of others all because he refuse to find a middle ground.

[314159.livejournal.com]

I'd say he was right to save his kid, but the court of law probably wouldn't see that. I'm thinking that the doctor was way too crude; he could have at least made a deal that the dad could pay it off over time but he didn't. And in any case, [this may sound like a stretch 8D] if you can be penalized less for killing someone when you were trying to save your life, surely he can't be held fully liable for a desperate attempt to save his child's life.

That's my two cents. :D

[gally99.livejournal.com]

The father was in the wrong, because he stole, which is obviously against the law.

Morally, we tend to justify crimes of emotion - stealing or killing to save a life, but it still does not negate the act that was committed. Also, our society has grown in such a way as to merely slap the wrists of white collar type crimes, which is what I would generalize the doctor of committing.

Legally, there are two ways to approach this case: whether or not the father knew before stealing that the doctor was charging 10x the cost of production.

[rabi.livejournal.com]

Having watched a lot of Law & Order, I'm going to say that no matter how I see it, the father is wrong. He's stealing something that does not belong to him. That's the bottom line. He might be doing it because he wants to save his kid like any father would, but it doesn't make him right.

The doctor is not wrong here, assuming he does hold the right to the drug. He might not be the "nice guy", but he certainly is not obligated to sell it at another price than the amount he wants to charge.

Now if you're the defense attorney and present this to the jury, you might be begging for the jury to look at this like the case of a desperate father trying to save his child. But the prosecutor will tell the jurors to only look at the facts and decide whether the father committed a crime or not.

[rabi.livejournal.com]

Also, I want to elaborate on this.

You said that the only drug that MIGHT save the child was recently developed by this doctor. The keyword being MIGHT here. Even by stealing the drug and giving it to his kid, the child might still die. What is there to say that the father might not sue the doctor afterwards for giving his child improper treatment?

Even though a doctor is supposed to save lives, this drug may or may not work on the kid. Also, a doctor's practice is his business. The principle of running a business is to make money. Who says that the $1000 is not a justifiable amount? It might cost only $100 to manufacture the drug, but it might have cost a lot more over the course of the doctor's career to research and develop this drug. This amount is not mentioned in the assignment.

[jackichen007.livejournal.com]

hm...i think this is a primae facie conflict.

The father has a duty as a citizen of a capitalist society to respect the doctor's hard work + time, and thus he has to also respect the price tag put on it. However, because his son is in grave danger, he also has the duty as a parent to help his child.

I think in this case, the father was "right" (meaning that his duty for his child was stronger than respecting the doctor's wishes) to steal the drug.

(wow....i hope that made sense)

[ani-mai-toll.livejournal.com]

Ahhh... good one indeed.

Ethical issue: Was the father right or wrong to steal the drug?

I would say in a black and white society he was wrong to steal the drug.
Now... In the world of the Shades of Grey...
He was obligated in his heart and mind to protect and care for his child. He did however try and follow the black and white rules and failed. In desparation he returned to the world of Gray and desperation, which any if not most parents would do - to save their childs life.
Still in the eyes of justice, he would be considered guilty for stealing no matter what the reason or desperation behind his actions.

Also...
The doctor could be wrong in an ethical manner as well. As a doctor he had made an oathe to help and promote the lives of patients/people. Ethically the doctor should have made available his drug to those in need, possibly adjusting prices per patient resources.

So I would say I feel terrible for the father. Cuz in the court of law he would be punished.

[amakarie.livejournal.com]

It depends on what you are basing judgement on. However, since stealing is in the realm of law, I'd say it was wrong, because the medicine was the property of the man; he did not pay the required amount for the drug. Emotionally I don't blame the man for doing what he did, but he should be reprimanded for stealing, because without law we're not a society.