Stealing Medicine to Save a life

[SisterSnowflake]

What is the Catholic answer to the age old moral question about what do you do when a loved one has a disease that is curable, but the pharmacy owner won’t give you the cure unless you pay $2 million. You don’t have the money and your loved one needs the pill by tomorrow?

Thanks and God bless.

 

[Cristiano]

The Church teaches that you have to do what is morally right. That means your action has to be right, has to be done with the proper intention, and in the proper context. I often use the scenario that you mention when I teach moral theology to the high school students in the pre-confirmation class. You also must realize that just because an individual might not be culpable for his own actions that does not mean that the action is morally right.

I do not think that the answer is that unique because it requires more info then what you provide . I would start looking at the Catechism of the Catholic Church from 2401. Also take a peed at the “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church”

 

[Theophilus777]

What is the Catholic answer to the age old moral question about what do you do when a loved one has a disease that is curable, but the pharmacy owner won’t give you the cure unless you pay $2 million. You don’t have the money and your loved one needs the pill by tomorrow?

Thanks and God bless.

The hypothetical circumstances your question describes do not exist, to the best of my knowledge. There are no medicines costing $2 million per dose, nor are there any illnesses in which death is a certainty if not treated within 24 hours.

Regardless, stealing is always a sin and never justified. The more likely scenario is a life-threatening illness which requires surgery costing several thousand dollars. In that case most hospitals would perform the surgery before payment with the understanding that payment would be made. Once the surgery was performed, you could beg on a daily basis, that is, when you were not working to raise money to pay off the debt. If someone can stand on a median strip with a “Will Work for Food” sign, then you could certainly ask charity of people for the sake of a loved one. Furthermore, I’m certain that any church worth it’s mettle would be more than willing to have garage sale/bake sale/spaghetti dinner type charities to help you raise money.

If you love someone enough, what would you refuse to do for their welfare? If you love God enough, you will keep His commandments. The issue here really is one of love…loving God enough to obey Him and loving your neighbor as yourself. This is just one hypothetical way I could imagine that would answer your question. If you found yourself in such a circumstance, you would most certainly pray to God for assistance as well as seeking the assistance of your local Parish. You’re never alone.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What is the Catholic answer to the age old moral question about what do you do when a loved one has a disease that is curable, but the pharmacy owner won’t give you the cure unless you pay $2 million. You don’t have the money and your loved one needs the pill by tomorrow?

Thanks and God bless.

Don’t know how “age old” this moral question is as this is the first I have heard of it.

The hypothetical circumstances your question describes do not exist, to the best of my knowledge. There are no medicines costing $2 million per dose, nor are there any illnesses in which death is a certainty if not treated within 24 hours.

This is why hypotheticals are useless as they will never occur and usually they are used to prove some morally relativistic stance rather than to show the Truth.

Not saying that this is occurring here, just that this is not something that is ever going to happen in the real world but I will respond.

The question again is, is it ok to steal medicine from a pharmacy to cure a loved one who will die without the medication becuase the pharmacy owner wants $2 million for the medicine.

I would have to say, go to a different pharmacy. Today they are on every corner, sometimes there are two at every corner.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What is the Catholic answer to the age old moral question about what do you do when a loved one has a disease that is curable, but the pharmacy owner won’t give you the cure unless you pay $2 million. You don’t have the money and your loved one needs the pill by tomorrow?

Thanks and God bless.

I agree with others that this is so hypothetical that it is hard to imagine a real-life scenario that comes close enough to consider. But if a cure really did cost $2 million, then you would have to assume that it is extremely difficult to make and in short supply. That means if you do steal it, then you would quite likely be condemning some other sufferer to death because the cure was not available to him. So no, I don’t think it would be moral to take what it not mine to cure my friend and thereby cause someone else to die instead.

I think the “age old” question you refer to is the one about stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family. But I’m not wading into that one.

 

[Rence]

Don’t know how “age old” this moral question is as this is the first I have heard of it.

This is why hypotheticals are useless as they will never occur and usually they are used to prove some morally relativistic stance rather than to show the Truth.

Not saying that this is occurring here, just that this is not something that is ever going to happen in the real world but I will respond.

Or, she may be experiencing anxiety about a similar senario or about something else entirely and is making up such a hypothetical to help herself think it through? I tend to think that either these senarios are made up to stir up trouble (I don’t think Sister is doing that), or due to axiety about something else, or needs something else.

However, the fact is, many people die or worse, suffer horribly, because they can’t afford healthcare and they can’t afford their medication. Some of my mom’s medications are crazy expensive. I don’t know how other people do it. She happens to get enough pension and social security to pay for it. In our economy that could disappear at any time. I would be desperate if we didn’t have the means to help her. So though it’s not an “immediate life threatening” situation for her, I can see how people get desperate to help their loved ones and feel helpless in not being able to… that said…

The question again is, is it ok to steal medicine from a pharmacy to cure a loved one who will die without the medication becuase the pharmacy owner wants $2 million for the medicine.

I would have to say, go to a different pharmacy. Today they are on every corner, sometimes there are two at every corner.

If my mom, or brother, needed a medication that I could not obtain legally for whatever reason, Yep, I’d get it illegally if I have exhausted all my resources (getting samples from the doctor, going to the Church for help, going to the diocese, contacting the company for discounts). Any way I could…I know that’s not the Catholic stance… I’m not sure what the Catholic stances is on a hypothical that the OP describes. I can’t imagine what a parent would do for their child knowing how strongly I feel about getting what my mom or my brother needs. But there it is…

Someone I’m sure will respond with the actual Catholic teachings and explain what the Church teaches and why.

 

[SisterSnowflake]

Actually, my odd scenarios come from working with 12 to 18 year olds!

I teach seventh through twelfth graders and they come up with some really seemingly crazy situations, but I don’t believe that they are trying to be difficult…I think they are just trying to figure out “what if this happened…what would be the correct/right/good thing to do”. We had a great discussion about “Morally correct” vs. seemingly compassionate, nice, fair, etc.

Even though for most of us (me included!) to save the person’s life would SEEM to be the good/right course of action, it does not make it the morally good, right, acceptable choice.

If you think the ones I’ve posted are odd, you should hear some of the questions from the kids that I have not posted!

P.S. I said “age old” because this question has been posed in intro psych classes for as long as I can remember, and I also remember a similar question in a moral theology class back when I studied at the seminary.

Anyone want to take a stab at a question proposed today by an 11th grader? I think they must have been discussing it in their psych or sociology class today: Some natural disaster creates conditions under which it is impossible to contain murderers in prison & they are going to kill everyone if capital punishment isn’t used (I told the girl that this is not a likely situation, but she still searches for a “morally correct” answer to her question)…while the kids came to the conclusion that the Church would allow capital punishment under this circumstance their “real” question was, “What about murderers who were sent to psychiatric hospitals because they don’t know right from wrong? If there were no way to contain them & save them, would capital punishment be acceptable (even if they don’t know right from wrong)?”

Y’all need to hang out with teens…it keeps you young (or nearly insane…can’t figure out which!).

As always, thanks for your responses even to these seemingly implausible questions!

 

[Cristiano]

Don’t know how “age old” this moral question is as this is the first I have heard of it…

This is the Heinz dilemma and it is associated with theories about stages of moral development. For a Catholic proper moral development comes from a well formed conscience.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is the Heinz dilemma and it is associated with theories about stages of moral development. For a Catholic proper moral development comes from a well formed conscience.

Except that in the Hinz dilemma the drug which normally costs $200 was rasied to $2000 by the pharmacy. That is a lot less than $2 million, so I would say that they are not the same hypothetical. One has a more real world application, the other is to fantastical.

Again though, try another pharmacy.

But one could make an argument that the sin of theft is mitigated.

From the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Vatican II document) found in paragraph 69;
If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others.
Go there an read it in context.

 

[TraderTif]

Oh man, I remember having the Heinz dilemma in my ethics class.

(I ended up being the only one who didn’t steal the medicine - I advocated dropping to my knees in front of the pharmacy, and begging for divine intervention…and inviting the local news media to come and film it.)

 

[Cristiano]

Except that in the Hinz dilemma the drug which normally costs $200 was rasied to $2000 by the pharmacy. That is a lot less than $2 million, so I would say that they are not the same hypothetical. One has a more real world application, the other is to fantastical…

You are correct here. What I meant is that the OP is a poor description of the Heinz dilemma.

…But one could make an argument that the sin of theft is mitigated.

From the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Vatican II document) found in paragraph 69;
If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others.
Go there an read it in context.

The Vatican document does not say that the sin of theft is mitigated. It says that in some cases procuring for yourself something out of the riches of others it is not a sin at all because it is a right. I am not going to debate where the boundaries are in the transitions from sin → sin with diminished culpability → right.

 

[Theophilus777]

What is the Catholic answer to the age old moral question about what do you do when a loved one has a disease that is curable, but the pharmacy owner won’t give you the cure unless you pay $2 million. You don’t have the money and your loved one needs the pill by tomorrow?

Thanks and God bless.

Another thing to be considered is the way that any Christian would consider death. Is death the ultimate evil which must be avoided at all costs, regardless of the moral outcome or any moral consideration of what is done to prevent death? Jesus Himself died and did not seek to preserve His life for the sake of a higher good(our salvation). Our lives on this earth are transitory and temporary. There is such a thing as an eternal life which we will all live, whether in heaven or in hell, and as such our choices in this life determine our place in the next.

So then, with that understood, something like theft would be a denial of the next life, or for that matter the placing of a higher value on this present life than that of the value of the next life, If Jesus would not summon angels to His rescue but instead permit Himself to be tortured and put to death by sinful men, what does that tell us about death in the economy of Christianity? Is it without value? So then, what kind of price would you be willing to pay to trade what Jesus did for us in exchange for the continuation of life on this earth?

The very act of theft for the sake of the alleviation of suffering, the act of theft which is forbidden and which if not repented of would certainly send one to eternal suffering in an eternal hell, only alleviates suffering in a temporal sense. So then is it really an even exchange? If you look at it from the perspective of eternity it makes no sense to commit a mortal sin which only postpones death. Death is inevitable whether cured temporarily or not, All of our choices have an eternal dimension which must be considered.

 

[thistle]

CCC 2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.