A mans wife is dieing of a rare disease medicine exsits but the cost is far beyond his income and he has no insurance to cover it. To save his wife the man breaks into a pharmacy and steals the medicine that was intended for another patient. The person for whom the medicine was intended dies with out ( think about it) its kind of sad if u think about it but at the same time like wow!
2006-11-06 13:05:46 · 12 answers · asked by tomboy123 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Guilty..
i'm so sorry to say that.... but in the eyes of law, he is gulity..
but i will say that the motive is noble...
The motive is right, but the act is wrong..
if the wife knows that she survived at the expense of other, how would she feel... and now the husband has to go to jail, and she remains poor..
on the other side.. somebody husband just died because his medicine was stolen. and they had spent so much on it..it will then be unfair for the patient and his family..
2006-11-06 18:53:37 · answer #1 · answered by cheesecake 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty,
The law plays no favorites. You didn't ask if he was right or wrong; that makes it a moral question. You asked if he was guilty or not. Since he broke in to the pharmacy (breaking and entering) and stole the medication, which is very expensive (grand theft) he is guilty. Since his actions caused the death of another person then he can be charged with special circumstances which will make the crime worse, and could even open the door for the death penalty (although I doubt if a prosecutor would be so cold).
In your scenario the only difference between the two women is that one is rich, and the other is not. By what right does your man condemned another women to death, just because she is wealthy. Being rich is not in itself a crime, the way that that the woman may have gotten rich could have been criminal, but you didn’t say anything about that so morally the man was wrong as well. His motives were purely selfish.
Yes, it is bad that some people get inferior health care because they are poor, but that happens in a capitalist society. It is the government’s job to try and equalize these circumstances. Medicare and Medicaid are both pretty poor systems, but that is all we have in place. With the high cost of medicine it would require so much government involvement that the system would be socialized. Is that a bad thing? Well I don’t think that the Canadians would say so. In their country both women would get the medication.
Then there is the comment on the drug companies who charge for the medication in the first place. When HMOs were created it was to get the high price of medical care under control. Soon the HMOs found out that the money wasn’t in the hospitals or with the doctors, it was in the drug companies. The drug companies charge way too much for their medication, but they claim that they charge this much money is needed to fund the research. For every drug that works there are a dozen more that fail.
So what is the solution? We live in a flawed world and any solution in it is going to be flawed. I think that we need to improve our national health program, but we cannot go so far as to bankrupt the country. In that case then the poor woman would die, it is unfortunate, but greater minds than I can’t come up with a good solution.
2006-11-06 13:23:35 · answer #2 · answered by Dan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stupid or not stupid - that's the real question. The person for whom the meds were intended should never have died at all if he had the proper foresight. If he went up to pick the meds on time and found out they were given to someone else or weren't there anymore, he would be pretty stupid not to find some way to get that prescription filled again AT THE EXPENSE OF HIS LIFE.
2006-11-06 13:14:49 · answer #3 · answered by Trillian 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is Guilty of Theft and Involuntary Manslaughter.
While his motives for committing the crimes were justified, his actions were not. His victory in saving his wife was ultimately a worthy reason to suffer any punishment for the above mentioned crimes.
2006-11-06 13:08:57 · answer #4 · answered by tjjone 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
this reminds me of a short story. There was this family that was starving and they had no money due to the state taxes. He went out and stole a loaf of bread and was caught. he was sentinced to death and excicuted the next day.
Now was it agenst the law to feed his family?
Well at the time in Ireland it was.
2006-11-06 13:10:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty of felony murder. Just because someone wants a medication does not mean that he has the right to steal it.
2006-11-06 13:07:57 · answer #6 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
....then the husband get's the death penalty and the wife is a widow who dies of lonliness.
2006-11-06 13:08:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
for Catholics its not a sin if u intend to try ur best to pay it back later. as long as its a grave matter that is.
2006-11-06 13:10:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes, guilty of breaking and entering and theft of perscription drugs, not guilty of murder at all.
2006-11-06 13:09:28 · answer #9 · answered by Help Me Help You 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he took a vow to look after her so I go with the husband
2006-11-06 13:07:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋