They could even opt to market them at a loss.
None of them do.
By acting in this way, they are obviously "putting profits before children's health."
As long as they remain within all legal and ethical boundaries, however, I see no reason to criticize their behavior.
Regards,
“Every pharmaceutical company could, theoretically, choose to market its children’s drugs at cost (i.e. without profit).
They could even opt to market them at a loss.
None of them do.
By acting in this way, they are obviously “putting profits before children’s health.”
Not so. They have created children’s drugs that benefit children. If they can recoup their investment and even make a profit they will have capital to create more drugs that benefit children. If they don’t make a profit or market them at a loss, they go out of business and there are no more drugs to benefit children. You can have both. Children’s health and profits. They need each other.
If it were not for drug company profits, we all would still be eating sulfur and root bark for everything that ailed us and dying at 40.