Logically, a cure that saves 99 people out of 100 and kills 1 out of 100 is an acceptable cure. If the provider of the cure is sued out of business by the family of the 1 who died then the families of those who die because the cure was denied would have the moral right in turn to get vengeance against the family of the 1.
It works both ways.
The pickle arises not from informed risk taking but from when other regulations start requiring these medications.
Nope, poor logic in action, as the family of the one was not responsible for the 99 getting the disease in the first place. By your twisted reasoning, if you have enough extra money to feed a starving person, but choose to exercise your right to keep it, the starving person can seek vengence on you.