As they should be; it's the protection they get from the FDA that distorts their intentions. Were they fully liable for side effects or abetting disease in order to sell a solution, they wouldn't do it quite so gleefully. Were there more alternatives to the FDA, private subscription watchdog companies as it were, themselves responsible for the accuraby of their information, the public and the medical profession could then do a better job of comparing competing therapies.
Something else I should add to this conversation: friends of mine who either grew up on hog farms or were animal husbandry majors all told me the same thing: pigs get Crohns, a lot. The cure? Mass antibiotic treatment for a week and all is good.
I don't believe they should be completely profit driven. I believe if they are to undertake such a responsibility as making drugs that are supposed to improve health, then they have an obligation to self governance in the production of these drugs. They need to be cure-driven not profit-driven. I understand many of the complexities of this market, but I also understand that vioxx, was solely for profit, and lacking self governance in its production and sale.