I was very interested in Flanigan’s argument about prescription requirements, as I have never questioned our country’s prescription laws, but I do not agree with her argument. I think prescription laws are actually very important because they act as boundaries that stop the abuse of medicines. In her argument, she uses the example of a man who has diabetes and his doctor prescribes him with diet and exercise but the man wants to use insulin instead but cannot obtain it without the doctor’s prescription. While in this case, the man should have access to insulin even though it wasn’t his doctor’s first treatment choice, if we took away prescription laws, then people not diagnosed with diabetes could have access to it. Similarly, with Adderall and other ADHD medicines, if we took away prescription laws then these medicines would become so much more widely abused. Even replacing prescription laws with a “behind the counter” rule would not stop the problem of abuse because we have several medications like this in the U.S. which must be sold behind the counter and you must be 18 or older to buy them, but that is the only qualification. If Adderall was sold behind counters for anyone 18 and older to buy, almost every student on college campuses would be using them. Furthermore, prescriptions are important because they allow physicians to determine what dose of the medicine you need. If we sold prescriptions as “behind the counter” medicines then people might also start taking prescriptions that are too strong which would also be dangerous. I agree with Flanigan that if we are diagnosed with a disease or condition that we should have access to all possible treatment options, whether they be prescription or not, I think that the access to prescription medicines should stop there.
Critical Thinking
I want to see what the balance would like between our current prescription drug system in the US and Flanigan’s proposal.
If there are certain cases that should allow patients to have access to treatments without a prescription, while still preventing the fear of supporting addiction, then what would the “middle ground” be?
I thought Flanigan’s mention of Adderall was interesting as we are all in college at the moment. I know so many individuals who use Adderall to take their exams or even do long assignments, but I worry what the effects would be of making Adderall over-the-counter? Would the usage of Adderall increase with this change or would it stay constant as it is still easy to buy on college campuses?
While in my response I agreed with Flanigan’s overall argument, I actually believe if I were to create a rebuttal I would use some of the points you make. Your argument overall adderall makes sense, and the same probably goes for something like Xanax or Zoloft. While people don’t always have access to it, there are ways people buy it from others for recreational use. If there were no restrictions to getting this medication, then the consequences on someone’s health could be negative rather than positive.