Flanigan’s argument for the removal of prescription requirements is very fascinating, but less interference in acquiring medicine and the relinquishing of legal responsibility create a worse off outcome. While I understand that certain patients need more access to drugs that can help their situation, limited interference of acquiring medication will not guarantee more responsible patients. While there are definitely individuals who should have the autonomy to choose their own medications, there are others who do not. For example, my grandparents are not in a state of mind to evaluate the risks of certain medications at the age of 95 and 92. Their doctors provide valuable insight and suggest treatment for their ailments. Additionally, my relatives talk to them about their health and the options they have to prolong it. Secondly, Flanigan’s mention of waving rights for certain drugs is a dangerous idea because it allows certain pharmaceutical companies to only follow governmental regulation. Thus, some of these companies are only liable to the government, but not to the individual patients they have caused due harm. It can be conceded that patients do waive their rights in cases where the risk is too great for a certain party. However, I believe this increase in relinquishing of rights sets a dangerous precedent in the medical community. Overall, current prescription drug laws create some unfair circumstances; however, this government oversight is for the benefit of the people. Still, changes need to made that allow more access to drugs for those who need it, without allowing complete autonomy for many medical drugs. Perhaps a solution could be more research into medical drugs that should be made available over-the-counter to the general public.

My implicit bias test was associating female and male words with career and family. I was surprised that my result was little or no automatic association with the prior mentioned words. This was strange since I thought I would have had some form of an association with male and career since I am a man. I think the reason for this result is my own background. Both of my parents have worked full-time jobs. However, my dad has been the primary caregiver as he worked closer to home and picked me up from school during my childhood. My mother worked further away from home in the city. In addition, my mother came from a family where children were expected to go to university and work a full-time job. I am sure that this test is not completely accurate of my implicit bias, but I hope I have somewhat decreased the association between female and male  words with career and family. 

In Blindspot, the authors discussed how favoring in-group members contributes to discrimination. This could be seen in selecting a family friend for a job application over a better applicant. Instead of someone being picked for their merit or skill, a person is picked for their relationship and similarity to the friend that is hiring. While this is done frequently in the corporate world, it would be unthinkable for doctors to choose certain people for medical treatment over others. This in-group favoritism reveals the discrepancies occurring across different industries.

This reading struck me because I was someone who benefited from this process. During last summer, I did an internship in Arlington, Virginia. Before I had applied, I had known the manager of the company since they had worked with my mom. I still submitted an application and interviewed; however, it is undeniable that I had an advantage compared to other applicants. This reading showed that while this manager showed kindness towards me, he  potentially did not hire someone who could have been better at the job than me. The issue is that this happens everyday across the world. This does not make it right, but it highlights how many of us contribute to in-group discrimination. The class of 2020 at UR most certainly has some individuals who have acquired jobs through personal connections.  In order to find a solution to this problem, we need to reflect deeper about how we are benefiting from in-group favoritism in our daily lives.

In Blindspot by Banaji and Greenwald, the authors discuss how humans each day make ‘unconscious inferences’ about objects, information, and even people. This can include making mundane inferences about a person’s political views or even what region they are from in the United States. One can assume that it does not matter whether these inferences are right or wrong. However, making these inaccurate judgements can be very dangerous in serious matters. For example, this reading references the determination of trust or intelligence based on only a picture of an individual. The implications for these assessments can mean someone’s life or their safety. This can be seen in mistaking an innocent black man as a suspect because his appearance is similar to a certain stereotype. This reading was fascinating for me since it demonstrated that our unconscious thoughts can have farther reaching consequences than we anticipate.