The Heinz Incident

In Europe a woman was near death from a terminal disease. There was, however, one drug which doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a pharmacist in the same town had recently discovered. The pharmacist believed that he “had to always do what was in his own best interest,” and decided to charge one hundred times what the drug cost to produce so that he could solicit as much profit from his research as possible. The cost for one dose was a quarter million dollars, and the doctors suggested that the woman would need four in order to be cured. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to secure finances, but was only able to raise $300,000.00 which were all given in the form of gifts. He went to the pharmacist personally and told him his wife was dying, asking the pharmacist to sell it cheaper or allow him to pay later. The pharmacist flatly said, “No, it is not in my best personal interest to discount the drug.” Heinz was desperate and he broke into the man’s laboratory and stole four doses of the drug for his wife. Heinz and his wife went to a distant town where she received the new treatment, and was cured.
Heinz was so deeply moved by the incident that he used his savings to start his own research center where cures for a number of different terminal diseases were discovered and distributed to the public for a nominal cost. Over the course of the next years, thousands of individual lives were saved because of his generosity. Seven years after the theft, the pharmacist who originally discovered the medication was vacationing in this distant town and he recognized Heinz as the individual who had stolen his formula in order to save his wife. He solicited the help of the local police and had Heinz arrested. Heinz was later sentenced and a date was arranged for court proceedings.
You were selected to be on the jury discussing this case with five of your peers. After several days in court where the defense and prosecuting attorneys each presented lively arguments, you and your peers were relocated to a quiet back room where you begin to discuss the evidence. The room was quiet, with each juror reading through transcripts from the trial. The prosecuting attorney presented the closing argument, with the following statement providing a summary of his thoughts: “In closing, I would like to emphasize the sober reality that if Heinz is released, it would set a difficult precedent throughout the Country for others who might choose to steal for various motives. A wrong decision by you, the jury, could negatively influence dozens of other futures cases throughout our Nation. Enforcing the just penalty for theft which is established by our judicial laws is obviously in the best interest of our all our citizens.”
Juror one broke the silence after reviewing the final arguments by stating: “you know, I don’t think the prosecuting attorney’s closing arguments really make sense. I mean, who really believes that the laws of this nation are always correct! I’m sure there are some remote nations or people who would actually reward Heinz for his action.” After a brief pause, he concluded: “in a sense, laws are really relative to culture, and therefore how can we possibly sentence someone for something that is not universally agreed upon as wrong?”

After a quiet moment juror two makes a point that the “selfish” pharmacist has lost a million dollars in revenue because of Heinz’s theft, and yet if Heinz is sent to prison his factory will close resulting in the loss of dozens of jobs. Over time, the revenue from these lost jobs would potentially be millions of dollars. In addition, he suggests, those being helped by the medical assistance will no longer have the medicine available at an affordable cost. “You have to do what is best for the most people,” this juror summarized, “and let Heinz go free. In fact, I think you should lock up the pharmacist.”
In response juror three emphatically says: “sure the pharmacist was selfish, but he did nothing wrong. He had the right to sell his discovery for any price he wanted to!”
Juror four thoughtfully adds: “I’m sorry for the loss of jobs and the impact of the community, but any way you look at it stealing is wrong….period! Heinz should go to jail.”
Juror five quickly stands and states: “I agree with juror four, but perhaps for a different reason. The Good Book clearly states ‘You shall not steal’! If God states stealing is wrong, it’s wrong… no questions asked! I like Heinz, but he broke a divine command and is clearly guilty.”
After a moment of contemplation, the quietist member of the jury, number six, added: “Heinz was simply the better of the two men.” “In fact,” he continued, “I believe his virtuous character and motives should be weighed more heavily than the rightness or wrongness of his conduct in determining the sentence or even his ultimate guilt.”
The above situation was modified from The Heinz Dilemma, constructed by: Kohlberg, Lawrence. Collected Papers on Moral Development and Moral Education. Cambridge: Moral Education and Research Foundation, Harvard University Education Foundation, 1973.

Based on the information in the Heinz Incident complete the chart below. I will be looking for details on each juror.

PART I – Complete this chart. Make sure to answer all the questions for each juror.
Juror Which theory does this juror represent? (6 Points) Define each theory in your own words. Explain why this juror represents the corresponding theory. Give your analysis on whether the juror has a good argument or rationale. Indicate which juror you agree with. Explain why? (44 points)
Juror #1
Juror #2
Juror #3
Juror #4
Juror #5
Juror #6

PART II – Ethical Challenges (Worth 50 points)
List one or two ethical challenges you either have faced in the workplace or anticipate encountering. For each ethical challenge listed use what you have learned in this course to discuss what you believe are the ethical standards expected of an employee when they encounter each challenge. Make sure to include the theory or theories we have studied in class that provided the foundation for your analysis of the ethical challenge(s).

Indicate which ethical theory or theories studied in this course (Divine Command Theory, Subjective Relativism, Cultural Relativism, Act Egoism, Rule Egoism, Act-Utilitarian, Rule-Utilitarian, Kant’s Ethics or Virtue Ethics) best represents your own life and worldview. Provide a detailed illustration as to how this ethical theory has been illustrated by you through your own personal life or within your current vocation.

Compelling correspondence is essential to the achievement all things considered but since of the changing idea of the present working environments, successful correspondence turns out to be more troublesome, and because of the numerous impediments that will permit beneficiaries to acknowledge the plan of the sender It is restricted. Misguided judgments.In spite of the fact that correspondence inside the association is rarely completely open, numerous straightforward arrangements can be executed to advance the effect of these hindrances.

Concerning specific contextual analysis, two significant correspondence standards, correspondence channel determination and commotion are self-evident. This course presents the standards of correspondence, the act of general correspondence, and different speculations to all the more likely comprehend the correspondence exchanges experienced in regular daily existence. The standards and practices that you learn in this course give the premise to additionally learning and correspondence.

This question has been answered

This course starts with an outline of the correspondence cycle, the method of reasoning and hypothesis. In resulting modules of the course, we will look at explicit use of relational connections in close to home and expert life. These incorporate relational correspondence, bunch correspondence and dynamic, authoritative correspondence in the work environment or relational correspondence. Rule of Business Communication In request to make correspondence viable, it is important to follow a few rules and standards. Seven of them are fundamental and applicable, and these are clear, finished, brief, obliging, right, thought to be, concrete. These standards are frequently called 7C for business correspondence. The subtleties of these correspondence standards are examined underneath: Politeness Principle: When conveying, we should build up a cordial relationship with every individual who sends data to us.

To be inviting and polite is indistinguishable, and politeness requires an insightful and amicable activity against others. Axioms are notable that gracious “pay of graciousness is the main thing to win everything”. Correspondence staff ought to consistently remember this. The accompanying standards may assist with improving courtesy:Preliminary considering correspondence with family All glad families have the mystery of progress. This achievement originates from a strong establishment of closeness and closeness. Indeed, through private correspondence these cozy family connections become all the more intently. Correspondence is the foundation of different affiliations, building solid partners of obedient devotion, improving family way of life, and assisting with accomplishing satisfaction (Gosche, p. 1). In any case, so as to keep up an amicable relationship, a few families experienced tumultuous encounters. Correspondence in the family is an intricate and alluring marvel. Correspondence between families isn’t restricted to single messages between families or verbal correspondence.

It is a unique cycle that oversees force, closeness and limits, cohesiveness and flexibility of route frameworks, and makes pictures, topics, stories, ceremonies, rules, jobs, making implications, making a feeling of family life An intelligent cycle that makes a model. This model has passed ages. Notwithstanding the view as a family and family automatic framework, one of the greatest exploration establishments in between family correspondence centers around a family correspondence model. Family correspondence model (FCP) hypothesis clarifies why families impart in their own specific manner dependent on one another ‘s psychological direction. Early FCP research established in media research is keen on how families handle broad communications data. Family correspondence was perceived as an exceptional scholastic exploration field by the National Communications Association in 1989. Family correspondence researchers were at first impacted by family research, social brain science, and relational hypothesis, before long built up the hypothesis and began research in a family framework zeroed in on a significant job. Until 2001, the primary issue of the Family Communication Research Journal, Family Communication Magazine, was given. Family correspondence is more than the field of correspondence analysts in the family. Examination on family correspondence is normally done by individuals in brain science, humanism, and family research, to give some examples models. However, as the popular family correspondence researcher Leslie Baxter stated, it is the focal point of this intelligent semantic creation measure making the grant of family correspondence special. In the field of in-home correspondence, correspondence is normally not founded on autonomous messages from one sender to one beneficiary, yet dependent on the dynamic interdependency of data shared among families It is conceptualized. The focal point of this methodology is on the shared trait of semantic development inside family frameworks. As such, producing doesn’t happen in vacuum, however it happens in a wide scope of ages and social exchange.

Standards are rules end up being followed when performing work to agree to a given objective. Hierarchical achievement relies significantly upon compelling correspondence. So as to successfully impart, it is important to follow a few standards and rules. Coming up next are rules to guarantee powerful correspondence: clearness: lucidity of data is a significant guideline of correspondence. For beneficiaries to know the message plainly, the messages ought to be sorted out in a basic language. To guarantee that beneficiaries can without much of a stretch comprehend the importance of the message, the sender needs to impart unmistakably and unhesitatingly so the beneficiary can plainly and unquestionably comprehend the data.>

Sample Answer

Our Services

Secure Checkout

Our Advantages