In the readings, both Flanigan and Hidalgo are essentially arguing for citizens to go against a higher power of which they normally are supposed to follow. In the case of Flanigan and the argument regarding a patient’s right to self-medicate, the higher power is a doctor who has gone through years of medical school and residency in order to have the power they do. Hidalgo’s argument suggests that citizens disobey the request by laws set by the government that they violate immigrants right to freedom. Both authors propose interesting choices for the individual that go against what we are often taught growing up.

A healthy doctor-patient relationship includes trust that the provider will include all relevant and necessary information regarding treatment options and prescriptions. I had personally never thought of it in the light that people should be authorized to make those decisions themselves. While it clearly is anyone’s choice to refuse medication, the idea that it would be their choice to seek out a prescription medication provides both benefits and costs. Flanigan did clearly address the concern that it would lead to higher level of addiction to now prescription medications. However, I do not think she adequately assessed the severity of the prescription medication addiction problem in our country. I do not believe it is the inaccessibility to these drugs that cause people to become addicted, but rather the substance in themselves. As Flanigan said, there are “black market painkillers” that would no longer be black market, but would still be just as addictive in a world of self-medication. And though she does address in saying addicts could enroll in a “voluntary prohibition program”, why should they have to be given the freedom to become addicts all on their own in the first place? From my point of view, the pushing of painkiller drugs by insurance companies and therefore by health care providers has created things like the opioid epidemic and that allowing people to have access to them on their own would in no way solve the problem.

Returning to Hidalgo’s paper, I found his argument that citizens have a duty to disobey immigration laws that “regulate how citizens and migrants interact with each other” to make a lot of sense.  I think most people can see that the government should not be roping citizens into law enforcement positions, unless of course they are police officers, and they also should not be controlling how any two people interact. Personally, I was not aware of the way that some immigration laws rope citizens into this duty and dislike the limit to interact with specific people. I know that if I were in the position where I felt the need to immigrate to another country for work, I would wish those people to be accepting and helpful in my struggles. Personally, I believe that the citizens of our country have the right to do the same on an individual basis regardless of the laws that are meant to be enforced by immigration officers or police officers.