I saw a documentary where they used this same question. The filmmakers were interviewing children, and universally the children said it was bad to steal. The interviewers asked the same children the same question each year as they grew older and went through puberty. As they went through puberty the children began to see the morality at work in the question, should you steal or let someone die? With all the children, they began to question their beliefs on the right choice in the scenario. They all thought the stealing was a necessary evil and was justifiable compared to letting the wife die. It was fascinating to watch the kids go from a rote "stealing is bad" evolve to understand the nuance.
tl;dr kids see things in black/white, while teens start seeing things with shades of gray too.
In the book "Do you think what you think you think?" I found many interesting ethical questions which might show you that your moral and your ethic is contradictory.
For instance... if you can save either a man or 5 people, but if you save the man the other 5 people die and if you save the 5 people the man dies, should you save the 5 people instead of the lone man? Most people would agree to save the 5 people, arguing that one should look the greater good, and it is the greater good to save many lives instead of one life.
What if the man is family of yours? What if he's your father, or your son? Here many people would change their dicision and save their family instead.
What if instead of 5 people it were an entire city, 10 million people? Should you let your family member die to save 10 million people or viceversa?
Compared to the Fat man problem, this one is easy. Stealing is acceptable. We have courts to sort it out.
An interesting point here would be "Why should the druggist charge 2000$ for 200$?" Many people may resent the druggist for overcharging for the drug (comparing it with Microsoft may be common). But don't for get the latent charges in developing that drug. The druggist funded his own research I presume. So he went through a lot of trouble for developing that drug (a cure for cancer cannot be very easy). So that extra 1800$ must justify the years of work he has put in (I am assuming he is not arbitrarily bloating calculation of man hours). Combine with that, the supply v/s demand issues and a price like that may seem justified.
Letting someone die by refusing to suffer some loss (the 1000$ of latent cost of production) is not human. But then again, all his customers will be mostly of that sort, if he is not a saint then he will have to be stubborn about the price.
If I am the husband, I would into the store, pay $220 for the drug and leave a IOU.
"Here's $200 to cover your manufacturing of the drug, I won't want you to go out of business too. Here's another $20(10%) profit, that's what I can afford now, here's an IOU for the remaining $1780 that I own you. I will pay you once things are better on my end. Signed, a loving husband."