Should the Apothecary have sold Romeo poison?

[annag]

In Act V a poor Apothecary sells poison to Romeo even though it is against the law and is deadly. Did he have the right to do this even though Romeo wanted it and was willing to pay good money for it?

[caitlainm]

The Apothecary probably should not have sold the poison to Romeo, but for both of them there were benefits. Romeo would not have to live without his true love, and the Apothecary needed the money to survive. Though it is not a good ending for Romeo and decision for the Apothecary it allows for both to receive something that is felt to be needed.

[lianab]

Legally it definitely wasn't right for the Apothecary to sell poison to Romeo. It maybe wasn't the best idea morally either because he is giving Romeo the tools to kill himself. However, this is what Romeo truly wanted. He would have spent the rest of his life longing for Juliet whom he thought was dead. Both men got something they wanted out of the deal.

[rachelp]

I think the apothecary did have the right to sell Romeo the poison because it is how he makes a living. If he decided not to sell certain things to certain people, he would go out of business and make no money, putting himself in a bad situation. He can't refuse to give his customers what they want. The modern day phrase, "the customer is always right" was just as true then as it is today. If Romeo asks the Apothecary for something, the Apothecary should give it to him. And even if the Apothecary decided to not give Romeo the poison, Romeo would have found it elsewhere, or killed himself another way. On the other hand, the fact that it was an illegal act makes it wrong. But, disregarding this, I respect his decision.

[sarinaw]

He had the right because Romeo was willing to pay and the apothecary did have what he wanted. Why would he have to potion if he was not willing or able to sell it to a paying customer.

[r+j]

thx