moral dilemma

[mrwoooooooo]

no, it's stealing and it might not even cure her. not worth risking getting put in jail and leaving her on her own.

[lawrawrrr]

I would say so, he shouldn't, because stealing is just wrong. It's emotionally horrible to think that your wife is dying when there's a cure there you don't have access to because of financial means but you're hardly the only one in that situation, if not for that disease there's thousands of diseases that go untreated even though there is a cure because people simply can't afford it.

Especially seeing as it 'MIGHT' save her, there's no definite in that, and if the drug did work he'd probably end up in jail and not with his wife anyway.

[FlyingJesus]

I can't answer these questions properly because I have too logical a mind so can't simply answer something without knowing the answer to all my questions haha.

Like how much of this medicine actually exists? I imagine if it's such a rare form of cancer, and the product is so expensive, there isn't that much. So what if he steals what is actually destined for someone who has paid, but is yet to receive the treatment? Not only would he be stealing, but could be causing the end of someone elses life.

Also how much does the medicine actually take to make? Maybe the scientist is actually not making a profit. He can't just afford to give it away, as that means he wouldn't have enough money to possibly develop a further cure which would be much cheaper and so could save many more lives.

Essentially I think it comes down to a battle between selfishness and seeing the wider impact of his actions. Of course it's horrible that his wife is going to die, and that he can't afford the cure, but to rob others of the people they love equally is not ok.

lmao I asked about how much of it there was too like if there is only one dose in existence and it can't be fully replicated without the substance actually being present then no he shouldn't because it is quite clearly depriving future sufferers (in the plural) of treatment, however if it can be done easily and cost-effectively then the moral obligation to preserve human life outweighs the moral obligation to not steal - especially if the pharmacist is asking extortionate prices as is the case in the more detailed versions that I've seen (which generally state that he makes it for X amount and wants to sell for 10X or so). But yeah totes agree that there's not nearly enough information given in this situation for people who want to actually analyse it rather than just go NO IT WRONG

[wixard]

lmao I asked about how much of it there was too like if there is only one dose in existence and it can't be fully replicated without the substance actually being present then no he shouldn't because it is quite clearly depriving future sufferers (in the plural) of treatment, however if it can be done easily and cost-effectively then the moral obligation to preserve human life outweighs the moral obligation to not steal - especially if the pharmacist is asking extortionate prices as is the case in the more detailed versions that I've seen (which generally state that he makes it for X amount and wants to sell for 10X or so). But yeah totes agree that there's not nearly enough information given in this situation for people who want to actually analyse it rather than just go NO IT WRONG

they're looking for initial reasoning though! BUT YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT AS I'VE GIVEN YOU AN ENTIRE TWO DAYS TO THINK ABOUT IT

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah I haven't spent a single waking moment thinking of anything else anyway I gave that answer when it was put to me the first time

[GommeInc]

Depends, there are discussions where theft isn't considered morally wrong if the item is for its intended purposes and can be easily recreated. You could argue it is morally wrong for a company to withhold life saving drugs if the price is extortionate and is clearly profiteering from the suffering of others.

From the vague details, it is impossible to give an answer without knowing the details of the drug - is it incredibly rare and difficult to produce? Are there people suffering from a disease who cannot afford it but need it more than the man's wife? So many questions

[Samantha]

When I read that I thought no he shouldn't, yes it would cure her but surely you'd want to spend his and her life together, he would most probably be arrested (although it was helping someone live) and then what? Also, it could cure her yes, but what's to say she wouldn't get hit by a bus or something like that the next day? It's a risk to take but he shouldn't break into the laboratory as that crime could out weigh everything that he was hoping to achieve by borrowing the money. He's tried various means to get the money but how long has she got before she needs the drug? Urgent? If not couldn't he attempt fundraisers, something to get the part he needs.

[Empired]

Also, it could cure her yes, but what's to say she wouldn't get hit by a bus or something like that the next day?

Wot.

Anyone could get hit by a bus the next day!!! Should people not be treated if they're dying because "lol owell they might die tomorrow anyway if they fell out that window over there"

[Samantha]

Wot.

Anyone could get hit by a bus the next day!!! Should people not be treated if they're dying because "lol owell they might die tomorrow anyway if they fell out that window over there"

I'm not saying that but it's a possibility, he steals it, she gets cured, he gets arrested or has one day with her, she gets hit by a bus, it could be him, anyone that's true but it could happen, but I'm not saying just because she's dying she shouldn't be treated lmao.

[Eric]

Err i'd try to borrow from a loan shark. If i still don't have enough money then yes i'd probably steal it. If someone has bought it and waiting to use it surely the doctor would tell us that someone's bought it? Butttt if there's only a drug, the doctor wouldn't even sell it? What about the other sufferers? Only one could be cured? He could ask scientists to duplicate the drug before start using it to cure more people?

it's either 1.) steal and go to jail, your loved one's life is saved or 2.) your wife will die and you'll die alone feeling guilty

I just think when it comes to desperate situations like this, especially your loved ones, you'd do anything to save their life. Even if you were to go to jail you wouldn't be jailed for life, maybe up to 5 years? It's a hard decision to make.