[quote=Awson]
"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?"EDIT: I'm not saying there is an obvious right answer. I'm just curious what your response would be.
[/quote]

PLOT TWIST: The maker of the medicine needs to charge $2,000 because HIS wife has an entirely different kind of cancer, for which there is no cure at all, and he needs to make as much money as possible off of his invention in order to fund his continued research to try and save his wife.

PLOT TWIST II: The kind of cancer that the drugist's wife suffers from is much more common than the kind that Heinz's wife has to deal with. By charging for his drug and continuing his tireless efforts to try and cure this much more common disease, he is saving countless lives.

PLOT TWIST III: While he's in the drugist's laboratory stealing the cure, he also decides to poach some very valuable medical equipment for personal gain. Not only does this constitute theft from the drugist, it also hampers his efforts to try and cure a deadly disease.