My initial reaction to Flanigan’s article against prescription requirements is a great example of the assumptions Bezio discussed in podcast 3. I honestly thought that the article was a satire at first. Prescription drugs, in our lifetime, have always been an accepted and understood norm in society. Exactly like Bezio said, for me since prescription drugs have always been my reality then they must require prescriptions for a good reason. My immediate reaction to the text was to see it as so far from being feasible that it was essentially a joke. Now, I hope this doesn’t come off as disrespectful in any way to Flanigan’s work because after reading the essay I clearly see it was well structured, argued, and researched. But I thought it only fitting to share that upon reading the title and just the abstract, my gut instinct was to assume Bezio somehow was going to say “gotcha! that article was fictitious, but you believed it anyway!” 

Upon further analysis, it was clear to see how ethical reasoning played an explicit role in Flanigan’s argument. The first two reasons she uses to support her acceptance of the DIC she categorizes as consequentialist issues. Medical outcomes and epistemic authority both reflect that upon evaluation, the consequences are what should be evaluated to decide whether the action is morally good or bad. For medical outcomes, both doctors and patients should want the best outcome, or the best consequence and therefore decide on the action that provides the best consequence. For epistemic authority, Flanigan argues that because patients know their own overall interest better, they should be able to judge their treatment decisions. The patients get to decide which action would provide the best consequences for themselves, not their doctor. Finally, the third reason in support of the DIC is presented through a deontic lens. The third reason is normative authority which means the patients have authority to decide their treatment plan even if overall it does not have the best consequences for their health. In deontism, we must only evaluate the action itself being taken not the consequences. Medical professionals should only judge a patient’s action, not whether or not the consequence of said action is what they view as bad or good. Furthermore, I also think it is implied here that virtue ethics could be applied in getting rid of prescription requirements. If we eliminate the need to have a prescription, it falls on the virtue of the individual to keep themselves safe and healthy. It is also their responsibility to seek guidance if they need it. I think if we take away the responsibility from doctors to prescribe drugs, then the system will begin to rely on individual ethics. We are learning how much ethics vary from person to person and to me that seems like an unstable foundation to set a system of drugs on.