This was such an interesting read, as I have never found the lack of self-medication to be any sort of issue. While it was fascinating hearing her arguments, especially the example with the difference between a diabetic person wanting diet/exercise vs. insulin, there was still certain itching questions I couldn’t let go.
For one, in her championing of autonomy, it still seems like Flanigan supports being informed, in that patients will still have information readily available to them. However, she says individuals can “opt-out” from relevant information … huh? The prescription system makes sense to me because doctors spend years and years of studying to understand how drugs work for the body, but with self-medication … an average joe can just choose to be ignorant? Weird.
I am also skeptical that this self-medication will only stay within one’s self. What about accidents? I suppose accidents occur no matter what, but I just find the consequentalist framework more valuable for this issue than deontic.
I think you raise really interesting counter-arguments, which is why there is a debate. I agree that I had a difficult time initially accepting the bold claim that Flanigan was presenting. It seems intuitive that we would trust the professionals with our health. However, as she explained the history of the prescription drug system, it was a populous movement to centralize prescription drugs in the federal government. With that came restrictions for laypeople, but it brings up the question of whether we find it so difficult to accept Flanigan’s claim because it is vulnerable to human “accidents” or because we have always known a system that has been centrally controlled and regulated? — just playing devil’s advocate
I definitely had questions as I was reading the article. I couldn’t grasp her argument completely because of that. I feel that we need to have a balance between self-medication and autonomy to use what we decide best
Doctors would still recommend drugs in the same way, but patients would not be required to have their drugs recommended by a doctor via prescription in order to obtain them. While Flanagan approaches this issue from the deontic perspective, a consequentialist view could also be useful in proving her point. Do we expect people to just randomly take pharmaceuticals that they don’t need to? It is unlikely that health insurance could cover them, because they are not for any recommended health purpose.