In her essay “Three arguments against prescription requirements,” Flanigan aims to argue that self-medication should be legal, just as legal as the DIC is. While there may be instances that self-medication could pose threats to human life, I agree with Flanigan’s overall stance. Aside from the hardcore facts such as “the introduction of a prescription-only category of drugs correlated with more fatal poisonings” (Flanigan, 582), I also thought the idea of self consent when it comes to prescription drugs was compelling and valid. In the regards of medical practitioners being completely transparent and recommending certain medical treatments, patients have the right to accept or refuse the course of treatment suggested to them by their doctors. However, if there is a certain treatment that they know of, such as the diabetes example where the patient wanted to be treated with insulin, they are not allowed to receive this treatment. If their doctor were to give them another form of treatment that they do not accept and they know of another cure, then in my opinion their self consent would be violated. Currently, a patient is completely allowed to choose their course of treatment if and only if the doctor has suggested it, even if there is an alternative they know of and would prefer.
After reading Flanigan’s article, I agreed with her stance on the issue as well as what you argue in this blog post. The issue forces us to interrogate the ethics of self consent and self medication– how ethical is it that patients can only choose their treatment method only if the doctor suggests it?
I agree with your stance on Flanigan’s article. When I first began reading her introduction, I thought the argument was ridiculous and unreasonable. However, she made a compelling argument, and through providing statistics, historical examples and fictional illustrations of situations, I was able to understand Flanigan’s argument. Eventually, she convinced me that self consent and self medication are topics worth researching further and potentially embracing.
Although I agree that patients should have some more autonomy in choosing which treatment option they want to pursue, I think it is also important to look at why the physician is recommending the specific treatment plan that he or she is. With the diabetes example, maybe the physician did not prescribe insulin because he or she knew that based on past medications they reacted badly to, they would also react badly to insulin. While this is just an example, I think it is important not to completely invalidate physician recommendations.
Your comment made me think of patients recommending treatments for themselves. For example, I know people have gone to doctor’s appointment where they have questions about using CBD oil to help with their anxiety as an alternative to prescription drugs. I think the most important thing is that people still consult their doctor for professional feedback, no matter which treatment they are considering. I appreciated that Flanigan’s proposal still acknowledged the importance of this professional opinion.