The Flanigan reading was very thought-provoking, I had never considered looking at prescription paternalism from that perspective before, because I had assumed that it was in everyone’s best interest, and when she initially proposed the idea of allowing patients the ability to medicate themselves, I was immediately hesitant. The idea that a person without any medical training or knowledge would be able to freely use medication that one generally requires a prescription to obtain was shocking at first because it goes against all of my preconceived notions about the medical field. The argument seemed like a leap, but as she presented more evidence about the doctrine of informed consent and concepts of autonomy and authority, her logic began to make sense.

The point that resonated with me the most was the idea that if physicians can allow patients to refuse treatment that is not in the best interest of their health,  but is in line with what the patient believes to be their best interest, then physicians should also allow them to use prescription medicines in their best interest as well. The principle seemed different to me at first, but the both fit into the vein of doing what a physician would not consider to be in the patient’s best interest, and the patient doing what they consider to be their best Interest.

The only issue I had with her argument was the idea that patients are less likely to abuse drugs if they have access to them. Although I don’t think that prescription drugs are more dangerous to use than non-prescription/over the counter drugs if used correctly, and the patient is well-informed, I think that the accessibility of drugs to addicts could worsen the existing opioid crisis. However, I do think that these people with addictions would still find ways to get their hands on prescription drugs, and giving people access to these medications without a prescription may make them more hesitant to use them, therefore using them more carefully than they would with a doctor’s notice.

In the Hidalgo reading, I had not realized that there were expectations for citizens to actively regulate their interactions with illegal immigrants, but when I started reading I quickly realized that these are widely accepted practices that restrict people from giving unauthorized migrants rights that U.S. citizens have. I agree that it takes away liberty from the American people, which is a side I had not considered, assuming it only had a negative impact on unauthorized migrants, which is does, but the basis for it being unjust is the burden on the American people.