On page 581, Flanigan quotes Veatch, who states “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.”  This is where I started to disagree with Flanigan. I understand and follow his train of thought in laying out how patients should have a right to self medication. But I wondered after reading this quote, why have doctors at all then? If a patient knows what is best for them, then why should we even go to a doctor in the first place and consult another opinion. I agree, patients should have a right to refuse medical advice if they so please. But I do not agree with the idea that “there is no reason to believe that doctors can determine what is best.” This idea seems irrational to me; I do agree with the idea of DIC, but not this quote/train of thought in particular.

I think the best argument for DIC is one of coercion. This is how I justified it best in my head: if the whole point of going to a doctor and seeking medical help is to maximize your well-being, then you should do what will give you the most utility/happiness. Doctors are trained professionals that can help by giving advice and properly diagnosing and treating. However, only you know what will make you the most well off. For example, if surgery is not in your best interest, then you have a right to refuse the surgery. It is wrong for a doctor to coerce one into getting the surgery because the decision to refuse it is not one that provides any level of utility/well-being to the doctor that is greater than the utility/well- being that it brings to the patient. Therefore, “coercion or deceptive inference” (pp 581) is wrong.