was in the adolescent psyc lec today.. and the lecturer was saying stuff like, how the adolescent progress in their thinking and stuff..
and when i went for tuition today, i asked my kid about the Heinz dilemma.. ok it goes sth like this ( not the complete and exact version):
Heinz's wife is critically ill and there's no cure of yet. However, the physicial told Heinz that a druggist in the same town just discovered a new drug that will definitely save his wife. Heinz approached the druggist, and was told that the drug cost $2000, which is 10 times the cost price. (ie the cost to produce the drug is only $200 but he's selling @ $2000). Heinz went to raise money but could only come up with $1000. He made a request to the druggist, to let his wife have the drug 1st, and he will pay the balance later. The druggist refused on grounds that he's the one who discovered the drug, and that he should be paid full for it. In the end, Heinz stole the drug from the druggist for his wife.
Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
ok this is roughly what the situation is about. there's no right or wrong answer la ok? if you don't mind, can let me know. =)
and i was quite surprised with my kid's answer. asked her 'why', and she gave me a surprising response too! so i guess the lecturer's right, some things do change.
but, some things never change.. and seriously, i don't want to think about it anymore..
tired.....
