Would You Steal In this situation?

[Cristiano]

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.

So I have two questions for you:

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

What does the Church teach in this kind of situation?

It sounds like a paper written by a graduate student in Minnesota in order to show that people with different levels of moral maturity give different answers!

This paper was used in our diocese as a text case during a course on moral theology. I used it with my catechism students and they were really impressed by the different possible outcomes and their moral implications.

If you have the reference to the paper I would appreciate if you could post it because I had a Xerox copy of it but I have not seen it around the house for more than a year.

 

[AHapka]

From the Catechism:

"[1753](http://javascript:OpenPopupWindow()
A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil."

Stealing in this situation would be a sin, but 1754 seems to state that the culpability would be diminished. But it cannot make good an action that is in itself evil. God’s will is NEVER for us to sin. While God can make good come from evil, he desires us not to perform the evil in the first place.

Now I can’t say how I’d respond until I was actually in the situation, but we have to remember that physical life is not the goal of any of us. Eternal life is. If I have to bear a cross of suffering by losing my wife, then it is my job as a believer to pick up that cross and follow Christ.

If my wife was near death, I’d focus my attention on getting her confession, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick.

 

[Wirraway]

…
So I have two questions for you:

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not? …

$,2000 isn’t much, considering its his wife’s life at stake. maybe he should hock his big screen TV and the rest of his earthly possessions and pay the price. has he exhausted all family / extended family resources, or the social service organizations that might defray the expense or even approached a bank for a loan?

and how on earth is he going to administer radium? does he have an operating theater in his basement?

 

[Contarini]

From the Catechism:

"1753
A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil."

Stealing in this situation would be a sin,

No, the Catechism doesn’t say that. It doesn’t address a situation where life is in danger. Note that the examples the Catechism gives of things that are always evil are “lying and calumny.” These are always wrong, period. It doesn’t mention “stealing” here, and I’m pretty sure that this is because the case of theft is more complicated precisely for the reasons I’ve given above. Since private property is not an absolute right, taking property without the permission of the legal owner is not theft under certain circumstances. Theft is always wrong: but according to St. Thomas the action under consideration is not in fact theft, just as killing in self-defense is not murder.

but 1754 seems to state that the culpability would be diminished.

Diminished but not eliminated *if *the circumstances are something short of absolute, life-or-death necessity. For instance, as another poster has pointed out, Heinz may be able to afford the medicine by selling all his possessions and undergoing great sacrifices. If he chooses to take the medicine instead of doing this, he would be sinning, but the culpability would be greatly reduced (compared to taking the medicine in order to resell it for a higher profit, for instance, which would be a very grave sin).

But it cannot make good an action that is in itself evil.

Right. But St. Thomas says that taking something needed for life is not intrinsically evil, and nothing you have quoted from the Catechism contradicts this.

Now I can’t say how I’d respond until I was actually in the situation, but we have to remember that physical life is not the goal of any of us. Eternal life is.

I have some problems with that way of putting it (I don’t think eternal life and “physical life” are completely unrelated), but that’s another issue. The point here is that preserving life is an absolute moral obligation. Private property is not. It is a precept of human law, fully in accord with natural law but not dictated by it. Therefore, in cases of absolute necessity where life is at stake, private property ceases to be a relevant consideration at all. Period. Placing property over life is evidence of a gravely distorted morality.

Edwin

 

[Wirraway]

…Therefore, in cases of absolute necessity where life is at stake, private property ceases to be a relevant consideration at all. Period. Placing property over life is evidence of a gravely distorted morality.

Edwin

I’d like to know the particular factual analysis that goes with that conclusion and the OP’s scenario. but we weren’t given enough facts to decided one way or the other.

 

[quasimodo]

I think Contarini takes a pretty good cut at this one.

Another approach is to consider how people make moral decisions.

Some will rely on their character and the virtues they are built upon to lead them to a decision. Others will rely on rules and principles to guide decisions. Both are good and actually both are necessary. We should rely on character and virtues but occasionally temptation will overwhelm. Then all you have to rely on are the rules: thou shalt not steal. But the rules protect values - things like property rights, life, beauty, truth, etc. What happens when there are conflicting values at stake as in this case? Clearly life is an overwhelmingly higher good than property rights.

Reasonable people can come to differing opinions, but I’m with Contarini.

 

[Contarini]

I’d like to know the particular factual analysis that goes with that conclusion and the OP’s scenario. but we weren’t given enough facts to decided one way or the other.

The assumption behind the OP’s scenario was that there really was no other way. That’s how I took it anyway.

Edwin

 

[Wirraway]

The assumption behind the OP’s scenario was that there really was no other way. That’s how I took it anyway.

Edwin

that seems to have been the intent of the exercise. I concede that your analyis is correct. it just seems strawmanly awkward.

the purpose for the theft would be a mitigating factor in his sentencing for burglary (where there is a range of possible sentences, he’d get one on the lower end).

 

[Starwynd]

It sounds like a paper written by a graduate student in Minnesota in order to show that people with different levels of moral maturity give different answers!

This paper was used in our diocese as a text case during a course on moral theology. I used it with my catechism students and they were really impressed by the different possible outcomes and their moral implications.

If you have the reference to the paper I would appreciate if you could post it because I had a Xerox copy of it but I have not seen it around the house for more than a year.

I’m sorry, I don’t have a reference to it at all. My friend said it in a discussion a day before I posted it, so I had no idea where it came from.

I posted it here because I was simply curious to what people would say myself.

 

[Mike_Dye]

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.

So I have two questions for you:

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

What does the Church teach in this kind of situation?

Yeah I would take it, and you know what… I would help myself to a big old handful of candy bars on the way out…just for payback for the druggest being such an a**. …I would be smiling too:thumbsup:

 

[Wirraway]

there’s just way too many facts left unaddressed for this particular scenario to be plausible.

 

[SumEns]

Augustine in On Free Choice of the Will, said that if we subordinate our wills to the material goods then we have done so by loving God less, and material goods more. He says that even our lives are material goods to which we should not inordinately cling to for, as it has been said in previous posts, our ultimate end is with God. Therefore, it seems, that Heinz ought not steal (which is a sin to begin with) to save his wife’s life because he would be subordinating his will for a material good over God’s law (thou shalt not steal).

 

[Contarini]

Augustine in On Free Choice of the Will, said that if we subordinate our wills to the material goods then we have done so by loving God less, and material goods more. He says that even our lives are material goods to which we should not inordinately cling to for, as it has been said in previous posts, our ultimate end is with God. Therefore, it seems, that Heinz ought not steal (which is a sin to begin with)

But you haven’t established this fact. Why are you so sure that St. Thomas Aquinas is wrong here? I recognize that he isn’t infallible. I’d just like to see your refutation of his argument, which I have provided above.

Edwin

 

[SumEns]

I think, in the long run, Aquinas is right (i.e. your point is valid). I am a huge fan of Aquinas, however, there are going to be people who agree wholesale with Augustine. For example, Biblical Literalists will say that stealing is intrinsically evil viz a viz the ten commandments. You could also cite Aquinas’ principal of Double Effect. Here too, I think Aquinas would say yes steal, because it is a lesser evil than not saving someones life.
Good ol’ Aquinas:thumbsup:

 

[Contarini]

I think, in the long run, Aquinas is right (i.e. your point is valid). I am a huge fan of Aquinas, however, there are going to be people who agree wholesale with Augustine. For example, Biblical Literalists will say that stealing is intrinsically evil viz a viz the ten commandments. You could also cite Aquinas’ principal of Double Effect. Here too, I think Aquinas would say yes steal, because it is a lesser evil than not saving someones life.
Good ol’ Aquinas:thumbsup:

But that’s not what he’s saying at all. He denies flatly that the action in question is stealing. It’s not a “lesser evil.” It’s not evil at all, because private property is a useful and legitimate (indeed, even necessary, in a provisional and pragmatic way) human convention and not an absolute right.

It seems to me that you and a bunch of other posters on this thread do not want to engage with what Aquinas actually said, because it’s too disturbing.

Edwin

 

[SumEns]

Hear is a simple question then. If stealing is merely arbitrary, i.e. all goods are globally owned, then there is no such thing as stealing…correct? If there is no such thing as stealing (i.e. theft), then stealing would not be a sin/immoral. However, theft/stealing is a sin (unless you want to say the ten commandments are merely arbitrary and not a moral code). If something is a sin it is, as a matter of the nature of the act itself, against the will of God (i.e. intrinsically evil). That which is against the will of God, is immoral/sinful. Therefore, stealing in this case is immoral. The fact that a life is on the line is of no consequence.

I hate to use a cliche that has been beaten to death, but if Christ himself was in that position I do not think he would steal to save a life. Ultimately, whether we live or die and when we die is not up to us. If someone was told that all they needed to do was steal X to save Christ, would Christ condone the act…of course not.

I agree with Aquinas that it may make the person ‘less culpable’, but if they stole the item then they are, as a matter of fact, culpable. Both Aquinas and Augustine believe we ought to order our lives in such a way that we always act in accordance with Gods laws. Stealing to save a life is not one of God’s laws.

 

[Caesar517]

I think stealing is not justified in the senario provided.

I believe that if the medicine in question were to fall under the category of ordinary means to keep a person alive (food, water, basic medicine) then it would be justifiable, as a person can never morally be deprived of this.

The medicine in question, however, doesn’t not fall into that category. It is extraordinary means – a new and expensive technology.

I think it wouldn’t be justifiable partially do to iteration:

Apply this to a larger real-world example. Lets say a scientist develops an expensive cure for particularly nasty deadly disease. There are 500,000 people in the country who will die if they do not recieve the cure very soon (this is a continuing disease – people are still catching it). The cure is so expensive than only a few of them can afford it. The rest decide that it is morally permissible to “steal” the cure in order to live. As a result, the scientist loses large amounts of money and goes bankrupt.

The same thing happens for a different disease. The developer went bankrupt because people were “stealing” it to survive.

This happens a thid time for yet another cure/disease.

As a result, people stop investing in medical R&D. With no funding, the few who are still willing to work towards developing new cures are not able to. Thus, significant medical advancement effeectively stops.

Consider the alternative:

When the first cure is created, those who can afford it purchase it and the rest decide that it is not justifiable to “steal” it. As a result, they die. When investors see this amazing new cure and the obvious need for it on the market, they invest in it. Since the scientist did not lose any money, he is able to up-scale production with the new finances. As his rate of production increases, his cost of producing each unit of the cure decreases. Thus, the price of the cure begins to fall. As time progresses, an increasing number of people infected with the disease are able to afford the cure. Eventually, the disease becomes moot.

The same thing happens with the next cure/disease combination.

Again, there is yet another cure/disease combination on the market. With increased financial projections in the medical technology market due to stability, more investors are encouraged.

As this process continues, cures start to become cheaper more quickly (more willing investors).

“Stealing” the cure seems to cause a collapse of the medical R&D market. It saves lives in the short run, but is very detrimental to society in the long run.

Not “stealing” the cure seems to allow more death in the short-run, but saves many more in the long run.

That is why I don’t think “stealing” the cure would be justified. Thoughts?

 

[Corki]

Great discussion.

A follow up question if I may…

For those of you who believe that the husband is justified in stealing the drug, do you believe he is morally obligated to pay the creator of the drug the $1000 he originally raised and intended to pay?

 

[Wirraway]

Great discussion.

A follow up question if I may…

For those of you who believe that the husband is justified in stealing the drug, do you believe he is morally obligated to pay the creator of the drug the $1000 he originally raised and intended to pay?

it would help in his post-conviction, pre-sentence report, and he’d have to do less prison time.

I’d want to know why he didn’t leave the money in the first place.

 

[yellowbird]

Great discussion.

A follow up question if I may…

For those of you who believe that the husband is justified in stealing the drug, do you believe he is morally obligated to pay the creator of the drug the $1000 he originally raised and intended to pay?

Yes, and I think he should pay the balance due as well - in installments.

Unless of course he could convince Congress to bail him out.