Drugs Kept From MS Patients For Pofit

It sounds like something out of ethics class, reviewing the Heinz Dilemma.  There is a life-saving drug, but you cannot afford it to save your loved one.  Do you steal it? Do they have the right to up the price for the profit if it means people will die?  The latest real-life situation looks at Sanofi, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies who plan to re-brand the leading MS medication for 15-20 times greater than it is currently priced at.

The result is that as the process to re-brand this medication for the use of MS continues, the drug has been withdrawn from patients who need it or already taking it (it was first used as a treatment for leukemia, but showed great success as an off-label treatment for MS).  After that, the company will be able to remarket the drug as they see fit for MS, including the price. In the meantime, what happens to the people?

Big Pharm has made itself an easy target to criticism.  The past half a century or so has seen the power that these companies hold.  Medication is often life-saving, there are far more positives to their use, however, there are countless cases where Big Pharm have ignore or altered results to better serve profits and left the people to deal with side effects(pun intended).  These companies are more like the Tin Man in need of a new heart.  Where do you stand on the debate? Is it within their right? Or is there cause for question and outrage?