Heinz's Dilemma: My thoughts on it

Heinz's dilemma, as narrated by this site:

In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2000, ten times what the drug had cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, ut he could get together only about half of what it should cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or to let him pay later. But the druggist said no. The husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have done that? Why?

My answer: depends on what options does Heinz have at that time. If it turns out that the choice is the best one (or the only one) he have in the context of his situation, then yes, he is justified in his action. Do note that I do not condone the act of stealing in general, but the scenario he is in might be an exceptional circumstance that calls for an override/relaxation of the rule.

I'm tempted to directly say "No, he should instead go through the proper (ergo legal) channel in order to obtain the medication... e.g. plea his case to the authorities, to ask for their intervention.", but without knowing enough background info about his situation, I think that answer would be naively rash. Maybe he should, but then, maybe he couldn't, for various likely reasons. Corrupt government... ridiculous amount of paperwork needed, when the wife could die any time soon... or perhaps he's a renegade from the law... any of these and more other possible details could drive him to choose that option.