Undoubtedly, Heinz' action brings into question the druggist's unjust treatment of human rights, as well as his own morality as a robber. However, the flipside of this situation brings in equally difficult moral questions, and I find it interesting that discussion has not focused more on Heinz' other option in this situation. The alternative course of action in this situation would have been, essentially, inaction. Had Heinz not stolen the drug, thereby remaining inactive in the situation, his wife would have died. In this situation, it is widely accepted that the druggist behaves immorally since he is directly prohibiting the woman from obtaining life-saving drugs. One aspect of this situation that is easily overlooked is the role of the husband. While the husband's inaction ensures that he acts morally (in the sense that he won't be violating society's laws), it also raises the question, Is the husband also condemning his wife to death by not taking action? Is the husband guilty along with the druggist? By not committing one immoral act (robbery), is he committing a graver, more immoral act (sitting back & allowing his wife to die)?

Another interesting aspect of this dilemma is the characters involved. After reading "Sex Differences in Value Priorities," by Schwartz & Rubel, I would expect that the gender of the characters in this story play important roles. If the husband had been dying and the wife had been charged with the responsibility to make the moral judgement with the druggist, would the wife make the same decision? Since women highly value benevolence (i.e. "Presevation & enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact" (Schwartz 1011)), I would expect the wife to steal the drug and, therefore, preserve the welfare of her husband by preserving his life.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?