I don’t agree with the first article at all. I agree with the fact that sometimes medical professionals may not recommend what the patient wants, but there is a reason why we trust their opinions. Medical doctors have been to medical school and they are extremely knowledgeable about medicine. In the article, there is an example about Danny who wants insulin but his doctor recommends diet and exercise. In this example, I believe that Danny should have a conversation with his doctor. I think that doctors want what is best for the patient and if you really want something different then the doctor is initially recommending, talk to them about your options.
I do agree with the second article on the other hand. I think if a law is blatantly unjust and discriminatory that citizens have the obligation to not listen to that law. Just because it is a law doesn’t always mean that it is morally just. I generally tend to not trust politicians to make decisions that are best for their constituents. Of course, there are exceptions, but in general, politicians are bought by organizations with the financial resources to fund their campaign. The NRA for example, has given a lot of money to certain politicians and I think that that means that they are no longer making choices that have the best interest of the people in mind. In this situation I believe that the people have an obligation to disobey those laws.
I agree with you about the first article. I think it’s important to trust your doctor’s medical opinions. And if you don’t agree with the treatment they are recommending you can always have a conversation about it and voice your concerns.
Your response reminded me of an instance with people I know not getting the medical treatment they thought they needed. But, like how you mention, they were able to go back to their doctor to seek a second opinion. When that second opinion also didn’t line up with how they were feeling, they sought out the opinion of a second doctor and ended up coming up with a treatment plan that differed from what they originally thought they needed and from what the first doctor had originally subscribed. These conversations are available with health insurance (which is a separate debate) and without the need for self-medication.
I agree with your first point. Medical professionals are trained to provide their expert opinion on treatments. I believe those that have a differing opinion from their primary doctor should talk to another physician to see if they have the same opinion.
Regarding your analysis of the second piece, my question to you would be what would/should be the repercussions of disobeying these unjust laws. Personally, I think that the blatant disregard of laws is what usually develops into reform and the changing of that law. I don’t think that disobeying the law is the best avenue for change but it certainly has worked before.
I concur on the second article, but I feel like in practice, very few laws are so “blatant.” I think that’s the tricky part about this article because when issues fall into a gray area, one group of people can argue that a law is unjust or discriminatory while others can argue differently.
I agree with you on the second article. I often have a hard time trusting politicians as well because corporations pay them a lot of the times. That comment about the NRA reminded me of a documentary I watched title the 13th where they explain how laws are passed and what corporations are behind these laws.
I agree wth your points regarding the second article. However, I think that it is incredibly subjective to determine which laws are “unjust.” Who gets to make these decisions regarding this injustice? For example if abortion is outlawed, I believe that women would have the choice to go against this law, but on the other hand if assault rifles are banned, I do not think that people could decide to get them illegally. It is a slippery and subjective slope.