Summary A person named Heinz is seeing his wife die from a special type of cancer. Doctors advice that only one drug can an save her. The druggist was charging him ten times extra i.e $4000 for the drug. After borrowing money from family and friends, he could only raise half the money i.e. $1000. The druggist was not ready to sell it cheaper, as he wanted to make money from it. Being anxious, he broke into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Analysis To analyze this situation, Kohlberg 's model for Moral Development was used. Lawrence Kohlberg, indicates that the highest stage of moral development “comes when life decisions and actions are rooted in an autonomous, principled judgment of right and wrong, in full consciousness of …show more content…
The action is judged by what the society thinks about it and also the intension of the person. The person is seen as a good person, if other people in society approves that he is a good person. In case of Heinz dilemma following scenario can be made. Heinz should steal the drug even if he get caught, but by doing that people in society will think that his intensions were good and he is a good husband. The judge should not give punishment to Heinz because he only wants to save his wife’s life and also he did not stole anything else from the drug store which show his intensions were good. c) Stage 4: Authority and social-order orientation: d) In this stage the emphasis is to obey laws of society. If someone violates the law ,he should be held accountable and should be punished according to the law. In case of Heinz dilemma following scenario can be made. Heinz should be sentenced to jail for stealing the drug because it’s a crime. If exceptions are made in this case then people will start steeling things and make excuses afterwards which will lead to chaos in
It would have eliminated all the troubles and saved the company’s reputation if this was in place. Though when the intention of the drug was to help epileptic seizures, you fail to look at the other uses this product could have. In regards to the handling of the issue, Lundbeck should have taken a more aggressive stance against the prison’s usage of the drug. Writing letters will only take you so far and Lundbeck did not give them any ultimatum if they did not comply. Lundbeck was too passive in the handling of the situation. They should have reached out to more than just the prisons and state governments. This case I do believe is a federal matter as it effects more than one state so it should have been taken to the federal court to be hammered out. Even then Lundbeck’s response time to the issue was pretty slow and it might have taken the case longer to resolve. Lundbeck could have also maintained better contact with human rights organizations and NGOs Reprieve and Amnesty International so that a plan of action could have been sought out earlier knowing that the prisons and the government were not going to do anything about
One remains officially entrapped between the outlooks of instantaneous sentence from state law, or perhaps delayed sentence from a worldwide court that tries to initiate a ruling from a superior ethical law. Incase one’s life or his or her family's life was endangered, incase the person defied orders the he or she recognized to be ethically culpable; there will be no choice but just follow the order. For instance, “Just Following Orders” or in other words "Nuremberg Defense" remained a famous fault of the
The primary issue that was addressed in the Journal article, “Moral Reasoning of MSW Social Workers and the Influence of Education” written by Laura Kaplan, was that social workers make critical decisions on a daily basis that effect others. They influence their clients’ lives through giving timely and appropriate funding to them and their families, through deciding should a family stay together or should they have a better life with another family, or connecting the client with appropriate resources that can enhance their lives. The article addresses data from an array of students from various universities. The researcher posed these questions; “Would social workers use moral reasoning (what is right and what is wrong) more prevalent if it was taught through an individual class during your MSW graduate studies, or if you obtain any other undergraduate degree, or if the ethic course was integrated in the curriculum?”
In everyday experience one is likely to encounter ethical dilemmas. This paper presents one framework for working through any given dilemma. I have chosen to integrate three theories from Ruggerio Vicent, Bernard Lonergan and Robert Kegan. When making a deceison you must collabrate different views to come to a one conclusion. Ruggerio factors in different aspects that will take effect. Depending on which order of conciousness you are in by Kegan we can closely compare this with Ruggerio's theories also. As I continue I will closely describe the three theories with Kegan and how this will compare with Lonerga's theory combining the three. While Family,
No decision procedure – moral decision making is too complicated to have a single criterion for decision
The basis of this paper is centered around two somewhat conflicting moral theories that aim to outline two ways of ethical thinking. The theory behind both rule consequentialism and Kantian ethics will be compared and evaluated. These theories can then be applied to a relatively complex moral case known as the “Jim and the Indians” example.
In August of 2001 Robert Ray Courtney was arrested in Kansas City, Missouri and charged with diluting drugs used to treat cancer patients. Courtney’s actions not only violated criminal and civil laws but they shattered the ethical code and the oath he took as a licensed pharmacist. His actions left many people wondering why anyone would commit such a horrible act, let alone a trusted pharmacist who was providing medication to patients whose very lives depended on him doing his job.
From watching the video about drug diversion, it made me think of my first day working at CVS and how I witness my first drug diversion from a patient. While doing some modules for CVS, a Latino male walked into CVS and gave one of our technicians a prescription to fill. Since the script was a controlled medication, they gave it to the pharmacist, so he can take a look at it. Before the pharmacist had the chance to look at the script, the male patient was moving around a lot and mention how he went to multiple different pharmacies and no one was willing to fill his medications. Those were the first few warning signs that something did not feel right. After my pharmacist examined the script and saw something was off about it, he decided not
moral decisions, we will be analyzing why this scenario poses a dilemma, possible actions that
Many ethical dilemmas are philosophical in nature, an ethical issue can be described as a problem with no clear resolution. In order to solve the issue or dilemma a consensus between the parties involved must be reached. There are several reasons to come to an agreement over an ethical dilemma, it is the basis for all aspects of personal and professional dealings. Each one of us is part of a civilized society and as such it is our responsibility to be rational, honest and loyal in our dealings with others. (Alakavuklar, 2012) states that individuals make decisions for different situations in business life involving various ethical dilemmas. Each time either consciously or unconsciously individuals may follow some ethical approaches
In the moral dilemma of Heinz, the husband of his sick, dying wife is in desperate need of the single cure available, which is her only chance for survival. The researcher who developed this medicine invested money and time in order to create such a cure for this rare case of cancer and wants to make money off of his creation. Heinz does not have the amount of money the researcher is demanding and it is his wife’s only chance to live, so Heinz steals the cure from the researcher’s lab. The question at hand is, did the husband do the right thing by breaking into the lab to steal the drug.
Everyone in this world has experienced an ethical dilemma in different situations and this may arise between one or more individuals. Ethical dilemma is a situation where people have to make complex decisions and are influenced based on personal interest, social environment or norms, and religious beliefs (“Strategic Leadership”, n.d.). The leaders and managers in the company should set guidelines to ensure employees are aware and have a better chance to solve and make ethical decisions. Employees are also responsible in understanding their ethical obligations in order to maintain a positive work environment. The purpose of this case study is to identify the dilemma and analyze different decisions to find ways on how a person should act
The moral development of children can depend on many factors. Parenting and upbringing of the child, their environment, social environment, gender, and race are all aspects that can contribute to how a child develops their moral standards and expectations. Many psychologist have tried for several years to develop a theory to how morality is developed. One in particular is Lawrence Kohlberg (1958), his moral development theory is based on the cognitive development of children and it is thought that moral development proceeds and changes as cognitive development occurs (Arnett, 2012). Kohlberg’s moral development theory consist of 3 different levels each containing 2 stages altogether making 6 stages of moral development, as Kohlberg conducted
Drug abuse has been a hot topic for our society due to how stimulants interfere with health, prosperity, and the lives of others in all nations. All drugs have the potential to be misapplied, whether obtained by prescription, over the counter, or illegally. Drug abuse is a despicable disease that affects many helpless people. Majority of those who are beset with this disease go untreated due to health insurance companies who neglect and discriminate this issue. As an outcome of missed opportunities of treatments, abusers become homeless, very ill, or even worst, death.
Life threatening situations can be some of the most difficult situations that one can go through. During these types of situations moral lines can be blurred in such ways that what one may think is right for that situation is not actually a moral solution that one should do. In the case of the Heinz dilemma what is verses what isn’t moral is a hard decision to make. In the case of Heinz I feel personally that there were two wrong-doings that were done in order that one right-doing could be achieved. The shop owner was in the wrong for over pricing a drug and refusing to help Mr. Heinz ailing wife, but at the same time Mr. Heinz was in the wrong for stealing from the drug dealer. At the same time he was only forced into that situation due to