Dr. Jessica Flanigan’s “Three arguments against prescription requirements” was an incredibly interesting argument that brings ethical issues into the medicinal/healthcare contexts. Flanigan posits that “prescription drug laws violate patients’ rights to self-medication” and after reading through her well-argued paper and thinking about the ethical considerations we’ve learned through this class, I agree with her (579). This paper makes a strong ethical argument and is backed by anecdotal and statistical evidence to support the claim– it is unethical that we do not allow patients to carry out prescription treatment plans without permission from a physician. Flanigan argues that much of this system is embedded in paternalism that limits patients’ abilities to opt for medication when they want it; instead, we should have a “non-prohibitive drug system” where “prescription-grade drugs should be widely available without a physician’s notice” (580). Flanigan essentially argues for patient autonomy– even if their decisions go against physicians’ recommendations– because it is unjust that patients can opt-out of medication but cannot opt-in when they want it. Flanigan notes that one outlier to her argument is patient exposure to potentially dangerous drugs.
Given what we have learned so far about normative ethics, I agree with Flanigan’s proposal to remake the prescription drug system in the United States, and I think she makes a strong case for this idea. While I am not well-versed in the healthcare or prescription drug system, I do know there are problems and the “big pharma” concept is a huge problem for patients across the country, where big medical companies do profit off people’s suffering. I think with the potential decision to allow patients to decide if they want to self-medicate, the prescription drug system would be more open and improve the patient-physician dynamic, making it less authoritative. People should be able to make decisions about their own bodies and the state should recognize rights to self-medication, as Flanigan argues.
Anna Marston
I also found Flannigan’s article convincing. It is a hard idea to consider because the ways that the current medical and prescription drug systems work are so engrained in what I know. I have always assumed that the current practices are the best, without questioning whether or not there might be a better model. Flannigan opened my eyes to other, potentially better, systems for medication.
I also responded to Flannigan’s essay and took the stance that it may be necessary to reconstruct the prescription drug system in the United States. Your statement of patients being allowed to have the choice to opt-out of medication but not opt-in also resonates with me because it reminds me the idea of self consent. This difference in the choices people have for treatment makes it seem as though they only have the ability to practice self consent when it comes to having medication options presented to them.
One important statement Flanigan made was that “self-medication does not require that manufacturers or the government provide patients with pharmaceuticals” so I would be very curious to see how these big companies you mentioned would change (or if they would change at all) if we did abolish our prescription drug system in the U.S.
I agree that patients should have the option to ‘opt-in’ to certain medical treatments if they choose so, but I also think that physician’s opinions should be respected and valued as well because they went to medical school and know more about what they are prescribing than we do. If a physician is recommending one treatment over another, and you prefer the second treatment option, the physician may be recommending a different treatment plan because the medication you want to take interferes with a medication you are already on. This is just an example, but I think this debate is very subjective to each patient’s case.