I will preface my blog post by stating I am against all prescription drugs being unrestricted. In the first section, when Dr. Flanigan writes the “risky access” part, why does Danny not just get a second opinion? For something as nuanced as diabetes treatments, doctors usually have different views on how to best proceed. Further, Danny is not a doctor. How would he know what type of insulin to purchase? The amount? Usage? Some of you might say that he could use the internet, but I counter that the internet can be very misleading. He would most likely come upon the wrong answer, possibly causing terrible harm to himself. While I guess it is his choice to do terrible harm to himself, it does not seem like such a good idea. Another point of contention I have is when Dr. Flanigan states, “Even if an institutionalized right of self-medication did cause more anxiety for all patients, widespread low-level unease wouldn’t necessarily outweigh the anxiety and fruition that is borne by patients who would take advantage of medical option that they presently lack under prohibitive regimes” (582). The easy counter to the statement is that the widespread low-level unease for all patients might actually outweigh any benefits that other patients would garner. We can not know the answer because, as the Effective Altruism reading pointed out, QALY’s and WALY’s are an inexact science at best. Dr. Flanigan’s statement also provides a significant reason why all prescription drugs will never be unrestricted entirely; Too many people would be negatively affected by it, so they will not vote for it. I personally would not trade having more anxiety for others to have the ability to take advantage of previously unattainable medical options. Granted, I have always had great relationships with my physicians and have been recommended to some of the world’s best in their respective fields. That likely skews my views in favor of physical control and many members of my family being doctors.
A particular part of Dr. Flanigan’s work seems especially relevant during these COVID times. If antibiotics become unregulated, then ‘superbugs’ would likely become more apparent. Considering the past year, I would not be surprised if said actions resulted in a pandemic. Why would we risk that? Sure, the paper touches on public health risks usurping certain rights, but that is after the fact. Why be reactive when we could be proactive in preventing another pandemic?
I do not know enough about the inner-workings of drug prices and insurance coverage to have a fully informed opinion on what would happen to those markets if prescription drugs were unrestricted. However, I hypothesize that drug companies and insurance companies would lose money, which makes all of this unlikely because whether we like it or not, money talks.