Making a cheap clone isn't really morally problematic to me. If a consumer has more options AND can make effective judgments about the level of quality they're buying, then consumers are probably happy. What is problematic is deceptive labeling/marketing such as saying "why yes, this is of course a genuine pacemaker".
And to be clear, the article is talking about that last kind. I think its terminology is rather off: I'd consider a "clone" to be something built to be similar, maybe compatible, but clearly marketed as its own thing, and the subject of the article would be "counterfeits." But for some reason they're using "clones" to describe stuff that's passed off as the original.
