A woman is near death from a special kind of cancer. There is one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It is a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug is inexpensive to make, but the druggist is charging ten times what the drug costs him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell the drug 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 gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz steal the drug? If the only way to get the drug required killing the druggist, should Heinz kill the druggist to get the drug? If the druggist is not making a profit on the drug, should Heinz steal the drug? What would Kant say? What would Mill say? Why (that is, explain the theory and then explain why it would lead the philosopher to say yes or no)?