Moral Dilemma

Harvey's wife suffers from a deadly disease and if she does not take her prescribed medication soon she will surely die. The only way Harvey can obtain the medication is by stealing it from the pharmacy because he cannot afford to pay for it himself and no one is willing to help him. Harvey's story raises a host of moral dilemmas. First, the medical system is itself immoral because it is based on financial class rather than on humanitarian need. Second, the impetus to help others should prevail over profit and even the pharmacy might have a moral obligation to help Harvey's wife. Harvey has a moral obligation to help his wife. Third, Harvey breaks a law and a moral code by stealing but to do so he fulfills a much higher duty: to save his wife's life at the expense of no one else's.

If Harvey steals the medication from the pharmacy he does not hurt anyone. He is not depriving the pharmacist of his livelihood. He is not depriving another sick individual from having access to the same medication. Harvey only risks getting caught stealing and even if he were caught would be unlikely to spend any time in jail given the extenuating circumstances. Therefore, Harvey should steal the medication from a utilitarian perspective.

Although a duty-based system of ethics would propose that the immorality of stealing can never be justified, it is impossible to prove why Harvey should let his wife die instead. If Harvey did let his wife die, he would have committed a far more insipid act than if he stole.

Knowing that the medication will save his wife's life, Harvey commits a petty crime only. The act of stealing is clearly immoral. However, under the circumstances only an inhumane individual could censure him. Given the tremendous good that would come from Harvey's action, he is justified in stealing the medication.