Flanigan’s argument for the removal of prescription requirements is very fascinating, but less interference in acquiring medicine and the relinquishing of legal responsibility create a worse off outcome. While I understand that certain patients need more access to drugs that can help their situation, limited interference of acquiring medication will not guarantee more responsible patients. While there are definitely individuals who should have the autonomy to choose their own medications, there are others who do not. For example, my grandparents are not in a state of mind to evaluate the risks of certain medications at the age of 95 and 92. Their doctors provide valuable insight and suggest treatment for their ailments. Additionally, my relatives talk to them about their health and the options they have to prolong it. Secondly, Flanigan’s mention of waving rights for certain drugs is a dangerous idea because it allows certain pharmaceutical companies to only follow governmental regulation. Thus, some of these companies are only liable to the government, but not to the individual patients they have caused due harm. It can be conceded that patients do waive their rights in cases where the risk is too great for a certain party. However, I believe this increase in relinquishing of rights sets a dangerous precedent in the medical community. Overall, current prescription drug laws create some unfair circumstances; however, this government oversight is for the benefit of the people. Still, changes need to made that allow more access to drugs for those who need it, without allowing complete autonomy for many medical drugs. Perhaps a solution could be more research into medical drugs that should be made available over-the-counter to the general public.
This is a very interesting counter argument to Flanigan’s article. I also had some reservations when reading her argument because of what I have experienced and learned on related topics. I think that her argument has many strong normative points, like bodily autonomy, which I greatly value. However, considering the dangers of addiction, I would like to see more empirical evidence on rather than normative philosophy before I choose a side.
I think you bring up an interesting point with your grandparents. If a non-paternalistic system like Flanigan suggests would ever be implemented, I think there would need to be certain precautions to ensure that those who access those medications are competent enough to make that decision. But how can you regulate that without requiring a prescription to access them? I think this is a really interesting topic to think about.