Heinz And The Chemist

Posted on

Heinz and the Chemist This essay will prove why Heinz had the right to take the drug from the chemist to save his wife’s life. There are many points that are morally right and humanly right. Not only does Heinz save a life but also teaches the chemist that he can not put a price on life. When Heinz went to the chemist to ask for the drug, Heinz said that he has sold all of his possessions and only has his wife left. He offered to work off the rest of the payment for the drug or do anything the chemist says. Because the chemist refused to accept any offer except to have the one-thousand dollars in cash, this gives Heinz every reason in the world to take the drug to save his wife’s life.

The chemist did not lose anything except the drug that took ten dollars to make. The chemist could look at Heinz stealing the drug as an investment. Heinz left the chemist five-hundred dollars which could easily provide the chemist with enough ingredients to make many more doses of this drug. The chemist could then take these many doses of this life-saving drug and provide it to people at a lower cost. If people are able to afford the drug they will buy it if needed and the chemist will be able to make a profit on his drug.

The chemist could also find out that Heinz took the drug and press any charges on Heinz because of the money left behind… Heinz would not be upset by this because he already offered the chemist everything he had. Even if the chemist would want Heinz put to death for stealing the drug, Heinz has got to feel morally right knowing that he saved his wife’s life. Heinz had nothing to lose if he got caught stealing the drug and everything to lose if he did not steal the drug.

The greatest thing a friend can do for a friend is to lay down there life for them. This is what Heinz did for his best friend, his wife. Heinz does not have to feel sorry for the chemist in any way thinkin that he has cheated or hurt him. If anything he has taught the chemist a good lesson that you can not put a price on life. If for example the chemist needed the full one-thousand dollars for some reason that could be possible used to save a life he cared about, he would have a hard time getting all that money. One-thousand dollars in three days is a lot to anybody and if all Heinz could come up with was half of that amount there are very few people that could pay a full lump sum.

Yes, the chemist does have the monopoly on that product, but the chemist would not be able to sell many of these drugs asking that amount for them when nobody has the money. If Heinz did not steal the drug all he would be left with is five-hundred dollars and no other possessions. He gave everything up and sold everything he could to get this money which does not mean a lot to him. The chemist would still have the drug in his possession that does him no good. The chemist would not be able to have money to make more doses of the drug that he could sell at a lower price and make a big profit.

It would also be morally wrong if Heinz did not steal the drug. He would have to live the rest of his life knowing that he could have saved his wife’s life. The chemist would also feel immoral if he ever realized that he has the power to save lives instead of being greedy. This essay has proved that under any circumstance it was morally right for Heinz to steal the drug to save his wife’s life. There was nothing else he could do in such a short period of time under those circumstances to save the life of his wife.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *