AboutPaul D. Friedman, M.A., Ph.D., J.D. Expertise In addition to my law degree, I have a master's degree in bioethics and a doctorate of philosophy involving comparative medical, legal and business ethics. I am an adjunct professor at a medical school teaching ethics to healthcare professionals and graduate students.
I can answer questions dealing with general ethics principles, including legal ethics, medical ethics, bioethics and business ethics. I am not a moralist and do not interject subjective values such as what is morally right and wrong. Also, I do not give legal advice over the internet.
Experience I am a licensed attorney, real estate broker and adjunct professor.
Experience in the area I have been a civil trial attorney since 1989 with a masters degree in bioethics and a doctorate of philosophy involving comparative ethics.
Organizations State Bar of Arizona
State Bar of Colorado (inactive)
District of Columbia Bar (inactive)
Federal Bar
Licensed in the Arizona District Court
Licensed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
licensed in the United States Supreme Court American Bar Association American Association for Justice Arizona Trial Lawyers Association American Society for Bioethics and Humanities Kennedy Institute of Ethics National Association of Realtors
Education/Credentials Bachelor of Arts 1985
Juris Doctorate 1989
Master of Arts in Bioethics 2004 Doctorate in Philosophy 2006
Awards and Honors Phi Beta Kappa
Multiple Who's Who
Publications A list of my copyrighted publications and presentations is contained at WWW.EXPERTETHICS.COM
Question I had no idea the anwsers could be so innumerable - I wish i was more familiar with the types of ethical belief systems and how they differ - Could you point me to some good , preferably free refrence material on the subject ?.
Leaving the druggist the thousand seems to be the best compromise balancing the universal right to exist with the druggists desire for profit.
-------------------------------------------
The text above is a follow-up to ...
-----Question-----
I know this particular question is my no means a new one having ben hashed and rehashed in many sociology courses over the years - however I would like to hear the views of someone as educated in the feild of ethical behavior as you are , as well as how you arrive at the anwsers. Without further ado is the famous Heinz Dilemma.
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.
Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
I do look forward to your views
-----Answer-----
Chris,
The variations to this question are innumerable as are the answers.
A strict utilitarian would probably conclude that Heinz should not have broken into the shop since the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. A Kantian may believe it was necessary to break into the store for the most beneficial result.
As a pragmatic casuist, I would look at the benefit of the situation and take into account the precedence of the past. The fact the druggist charges ten times the amount of the cost is really immaterial, although it does make for a moral issue on the cost of rationing. The greater question is it ethical to commit a crime even if it seemingly hurts a little to save a life.
My answer as an ethicist would be that the maleficence seems minor in comparison to the beneficence of saving a life. This is based on principlism. However, a caveat would be that I am also an attorney and could not advise someone to break the law as an officer of the court. I would advise that what is legal is not always ethical and what is ethical is not always legal. The two are not synonymous.
A more pragmatic and judicious approach would be for Heinz to leave the $1,000 which would still be 5 times the cost of the drug which seems more ethically acceptable.
I enjoyed this discussion although I could really write a book based upon different philosophies. As an ethicist, I would ultimately determine it was acceptable and as a pragmatist, I could rationalize the answer based on a combination of a number of philosophies.
Thank you for such an interesting question.
Paul D. Friedman, M.A., Ph.D., J.D.
Answer Chris,
A very good author on this subject is Tom Beauchamp. I would strongly recommend getting one of his textbooks. Also, you can try doing google searches using Beauchamp as a source to see if there is anything online.
This is an interesting field and it is nice to see you taking an interest.
