Without more information, I think the indignant tone and format of this article are unwarranted. Before we learn anything, we hear about the human toll: innocent babies will die, parents are distraught, and doctors are furious. But we&#x27;re provided with no clear information on the reason for the price increase.<p>&quot;When Mallinckrodt acquired Questcor in 2014, Synacthen Depot was one of the products in the portfolio. It was losing money then and still is.  Moreover, in the spring of 2014, Mallinckrodt was told by the existing supplier of the product that they would cease production in early 2016,&quot; a Mallinckrodt spokesman said in an email to CBC News.<p>So the company faced an unexpected reduction in supply, and the drug might have been unprofitable at the previous price. One can object to the fact that the means of pharmaceutical production are privately owned, but given that these are not currently non-profit institutions, the outrage seems misplaced. There&#x27;s nothing &quot;absurd&quot; about it.<p>Edit:<p>I&#x27;d like to address some of the commenters, who seem to have misinterpreted my comment as a defense of this company, or the pharmaceutical industry in general.<p>This comment is an objection to the style of journalism in this article: light on information, heavy on emotion. I&#x27;ve said nothing in defense of the corporation.<p>Some have suggested that these corporations should not increase prices in order to uphold some set of moral principles. I take it for granted that corporations are only answerable to power, and any limitations you might wish to impose upon them must either take the form of collective action (boycotts&#x2F;protests) or regulation. Perhaps motivating either of these was the intent of the article, but if so the author went about expressing this wish in a way that I find objectionable, by appealing to emotion rather than reason and disguising an ideological belief as factual reporting.