In these readings and the podcast, topics of controversy and possible areas of change were discussed. In the first reading, (Flannigan 579-586) it was argued that patients should be regarded as the ultimate authority when it comes to decisions. For me, I had never really though about prescription medicine in this light. I have always thought it’s important to be prescribed medicine in order to access it, so that one wasn’t abusing it or using it when they shouldn’t. While this probably remains true, I see another side after reading this. I’ve realized that while it is still advised that patients receive advice from a professional, they should not receive so much to the point that they feel like they are being pressured to give consent to a certain medicine. For instance, if someone at school runs out of their prescription and goes to a pharmacy to have it refilled, but doesn’t. have a doctors note, they may have to wait. What this paper argues is that these people should be able to receive this medicine without a doctors not, because patients know their body best. This is something I now agree with.

In the second reading, (Hidalgo 1-22), it discussed immigration restrictions. It mentioned the fact that they are unjust because they take away liberties of citizens. While this has always been something I agree with, something new was mentioned. The author mentioned that people who comply with interaction restrictions are contribution to rights violations. But the risks of not complying are dangerous because if one disobeys the law and authority, they themselves could be punished. While this makes sense to me, I’ve never really thought about what I may be doing that is complying with laws I don’t necessarily agree with. Both of these readings gave me a new and interesting perspective on topics that I thought I had already formed a full opinion about.