Initial Impression:

I think that it is the druggist’s right to charge as much as he wants, even if it is morally wrong.

And although I recognize it is a difficult decision, I don’t think the husband should steal the drug.

Although I would not judge him for making that choice, it is not a choice I would make. We have

a system of laws for a reason, and to ignore them in this case creates gray areas for future cases.

Ideally, we would live in a world where healthcare is affordable so that this situation wouldn’t

occur, but that is not the topic of discussion.

Question 1:

We felt that the law was very important in making our decision. Consequences were also very

important, particularly, whether the consequences outweigh the benefits. Overall, we concluded

that it wasn’t wrong to steal the drug, but if you did you should be prepared to face the law.

Question 2:

If Heinz steals the drug, he might face time in prison, or have to pay a fine. Saving a life is

important, but in the end it's a personal decision. I would not think the consequences are better

than his wife dying.

Question 3:

Considering I don’t think Heinz should steal the drug in the first place, my opinion doesn’t

change if the woman was a stranger. However, someone must be willing to face consequences

for someone they don’t know.

Question 4:

If he doesn’t like his wife, I don’t understand why he would put himself at risk. However, saving

a life should not be influenced by whether you like them or not.

Question 5:
An animal is not important enough to sacrifice yourself to save. Chances are, you could be in jail

longer than that animal would live. Sometimes there is a value placed on life.

Consequences:

We believe that Heinz should be convicted of theft and punished. However, his circumstances

would come into play in the trial, and he would be given the more lenient side of the punishment.

If he wasn’t punished at all, our law system would fall apart. The druggist did nothing wrong but

be greedy within the scope of the law.