"Blah blah eternal life oligarchs or whatever" - who cares it's not like we don't have that problem now. Those people are powerful because we let them be, it's not innate. Maybe we might do something about the problem when there's a risk it'll last forever rather then pretending it's not a systemic failure.
If it's possible to do, it's going to be done: the question is actually "should we let poor people (non-billionaires) have it?".
After a while the slightly less rich get it, and after a few decades, it's everyone's absolute birthright.
Another angle: what's science going to be like when no-one ever retires from faculty positions?
The moral question isn't important as much as how it will play out in practice. i.e., it will be available to the highest bidders, at first, and from then on, the best life extension will be available to those with the most money. It's only a matter of time before that sways the majority against the wealthy minority, and then pragmatism may dictate some concession to not as wealthy people, lest heads roll. The option B is governance at a global level that mandates equal access, which is hardly realistic in today's political climate.
"Governance at a global level" would put IP owners in charge of health care everywhere, which seems unlikely to increase egalitarianism in life expectancy.