Someone with a rare disease for which there is no ongoing research into drug therapy would agree with you.
There will never be a drug to treat some diseases because no pharmaceutical company will take on the research, development and approval process of a drug when they have no chance of making even a fraction of what they paid back. The backlash that Martin Shkreli received only deincentivizes the possibility of the pharmaceutical industry taking on the exorbitant cost of developing a medication for an uncommon disease and certainly a rare disease.
For those that are screeching about morality - at what point is there a moral obligation? Is it only when death could be involved? Is depression deadly because of the risk of suicide? What about pain associated with RA?
Is the moral boundary drawn at keeping the price of the medication near what it was when it was released? Could the pharmaceutical companies be held responsible for not taking on a potentially life-saving risk when there is no hope of a return on investment? Because that’s exactly what all this is leading to.
The day you penalize economic voracity is the day the people that hold the key to treatment evacuate en masse.
It’s not so black and white and I’m glad at least someone is willing to stand up and admit that.