so...
are you saying that the british universal healthcare system _prevented_ mr. hardy from purchasing it himself?
didnt think so.
just because pfizer can come up with an expensive new drug ( that is their business you know ), doesnt instantly provide rationalisation to purchase it.
any evidence of what the benefits to this expensive new drug were?
i'd say that if mr. hardy had kidney cancer, which had spread to his lungs, his days are pretty well numbered as it is, so handing over a metric assload of cash to pfizer in order to extend his life by a matter of (probably only) weeks would be sheer self indulgent madness.
it comes down to this: would mrs. hardy like to be the one to pick and choose which services to deny others in need from the healthcare system in order to cover the cost of the expensive medication?