Reading Flanigan’s introduction to her paper, I was pretty adamant that I was going to disagree with her. The idea of giving people free access to all prescription drugs, including the opioids that have sparked an enormous addiction epidemic and other prescription drugs like Adderall that are frequently taken without prescription, seemed ridiculous to me. The idea that people know what drugs are best for them without physician advice seemed laughable. There’s a reason people attend medical school and residency and every other step along the way that puts them in a position to prescribe these powerful and sometimes addictive drugs.
But as much as I didn’t want to believe it, Flanigan made some very good points. Our whole medical system is based on the principle of non-paternalism, with the sharp exception of drug regulation. Everything else – most notably the Doctrine of Informed Consent – is based on the principle that patients have a right to make the decision they deem best for them, so her question of why that right suddenly stops with drugs is very valid. Flanigan also notes that a reason people take the opiates or other addictive drugs in the first place is because they assume they’re safe since a doctor prescribed them, even though there are serious risks associated with those substances. Also, countries that don’t have enforced drug regulation actually show lower mortality rates because patients can access medicines they need without restriction. While this idea of self-medication generally goes against everything I thought I believed, I have to agree that Flanigan made a strong case. She also provided useful solutions and alternatives to opposing beliefs. It was also interesting to see her use the same ethical argument forms like normative and deontic that we’re learning about in class and see that they have very real uses and applications.
I agree with what you are saying. I at first was very skeptical of her ideas, but I can understand where she is coming from. That being said, I would still be very scared to take anything without a prescription from a doctor and definitely would not trust myself to be in charge of my own medication. I do, however, feel like if I grew up someplace else I would feel differently.
I’m actually glad that a lot of people disagreed with the ideas in this paper (even if she made strong arguments). I think I’m biased towards the right to self-medication because I have personal ties to this, but reading other people’s posts reminded me how dangerous it could be. If this is a change that we started to make, we’d have to be very careful in how we approach it.
I agree with you, Charlotte. I went into this reading thinking I would disagree with Flanigan’s argument. I was really surprised when I finished reading and agreed that she made some very strong points. While it’s hard for me to wrap my mind around, it’s interesting that other countries around the world have lower mortality rates because patients have access to these medicines that they may not have been able to get elsewhere. If it can happen (and prove to be effective) in other places around the world, why not here?
I think you brought up some really interesting points. I agree that there are issues with how the concept of non-paternalism stops at drug regulation. To that, I question, would it be better to change the laws around drug regulation and limit to what extent doctors can prescribe these medications to prevent patients’ addiction instead of allowing people who are likely less informed than doctors to self-medicate? I think the comparison of mortality rates is very interesting, but I am not convinced leaving things up to self-medication would lower mortality rates in the United States.