I thought that Flanigan’s article brought up a lot of interesting points, but overall, I did not find it convincing. From the moment of reading the thesis/goal of Flanigan’s argument, I felt that changing the structure of the prescription process so that patients can legally self-medicate did not make sense because prescriptions exist for a reason. Prescriptions are supposed to be an expert telling another person what they need to do. Flanigan related prescriptions to paternalism because I think of paternalism as someone forcing their own cultures and/or beliefs on others. While technically a medical opinion is the doctor’s own “belief,” because the doctor is an expert who went through many additional years of schooling, he or she can be classified as an expert which makes it different.
Through the next section, I agreed with her entire support of DIC, but as she continued on to turn the logic towards self-medication, I started to take issue with her connections. For example, on page 582, she claims “prescription-only regimes actually encourage dangerous drug use,” I view this more as an issue with the FDA’s certification process because no exceptionally risky drugs are supposed to be allowed on the market in the first place.
To be fair, I did form an opinion about as soon as I read the thesis, so my reading of the remaining part of the article could have possibly been skewed by this.
I totally agree with you that I had a difficult time reading the article after a very assertive first sentence: “In this essay, I argue that prescription drug laws violate patients’ rights to self-medication.”. I can’t say I was completely convinced at the end either because individuals are not going to decentralize the prescription drug system. I think Dr. Flanigan’s argument is interesting, but it is optimistic and very reliant on the goodness of an informed person, in my opinion; and that makes it quite vulnerable to questioning.
I also agree. From the beginning I did not agree with her argument. But since her points made sense as I was reading on, it convinced me that her argument can be agreeable. I have mixed-feelings about her article so I’m pretty neutral towards her argument but I do also believe that it is too optimistic and relying on an informed person to medicate themselves would produce a more dangerous outcome.
I agree there is certainly a difference between the right to refuse treatment and the right to self medication. The simple fact is doctors are trained and understand the human body and what can plague it, not us. Just because it’s our body doesn’t necessarily mean we know best.