I think Hidalgo brought up some very interesting arguments. In his piece, Hidalgo argues, “the citizens of states that enforce unjust immigration restriction have duties to disobey certain immigration laws.” (Hidalgo 1) This idea reminds me of a concept that I learned in a history course, that legality can infer morality, but at times, the two can be independent of one another. In my class, we primarily looked at the Abolitionist period, in which at the time, slavery was a legal practice and people used its legality as a defense for their inhumane actions. While slave owners were not doing anything illegal in regards to the legal system at the time, it is now looked back in history as a dark period and abolitionists are celebrated for their actions to prohibit the act despite its legality. I agree with Hidalgo that it is morally ok to disobey/fight against laws; I think it is up to history to determine if those who stood by or fought the law is on the side of morality.
Secondly, I found the Flanigan reading to be particularly interesting, as I had never heard an argument for this issue before. I agree with Dr. Flanigan that patients should be able to refuse treatment if they do not deem it necessary, however, I cannot wrap my head around justifying giving people the choice over what medicines to take. Flanigan quotes Bioethicist Robert Veatch, stating “There is no reason to believe that a physician or any other expert in only one component of well-being should be able to determine what constitutes the good for another being.” (Flanigan 581) I think there are some things in life that I think speaking to experts will always lead to better results than just doing something by themselves. From personal training to getting a wealth advisor to manage your portfolio for saving, I think people are always better off talking to an expert in the field. I think this is critically important when it comes to getting medicine. In the other two examples, people that go to the gym by themselves or invest their own money will typically make progress, but not at the same rate as an expert. For visiting a doctor, the consequences are much direr, and I think it is unrealistic to assume that more people would be better off not visiting a doctor and medicating themselves than visiting a doctor. Doctors have to go through extensive training that takes years, are more in touch with what is new in the world of medicine, and have likely dealt with similar cases from past patients who suffered similar illnesses or injuries. While I agree that patients should have the right to refuse treatement, I cannot fathom a world in which society is better off by prescribing their own medicine because ‘they know their body better.’
I agree with what you have to say towards Flanigan’s article. Although her argument makes sense. it does seem very unrealistic as it would most likely be more dangerous to implement a self-medication option. Physicians spend years studying and understanding how a drug works and its effects and risk. So if a person is not knowledgeable on that, they shouldn’t be able to self-medicate.
I also agree with you about Flanigan’s article. I thought the best part of her argument was arguing the DIC component, but I thought that she failed to fully connect that argument to why patients should be allowed to self-prescribe drugs.
I agree completely in reference to Flanigan’s piece; it is hard to imagine someone making a better decision than a professionally-trained doctor. Someone rejecting a doctor’s opinion is almost insinuating that his/her schooling is invalid and irrelevant, which is blatantly wrong.
I think that your response to Flanigan’s piece is an important one. Doctor’s have one of the most important jobs in society, as it is truly up to them to decide what is best for other individuals. To go against the decision of a doctor is to implicitly deny that they have attempted to do their job. It is necessary to remember that all doctors have the goal of helping people in mind, it is not valuable to over-scrutinize their work. That job should be left for medical malpractice lawyers.