Todays podcast was about making assumptions about people, and how Worldview’s shape what we consider right and wrong, shaped by what we think of as normal/familiar. At the beginning of the podcast, Dr. Bezios example of women being told to cover up with their dress codes in schools, businesses, etc, really spoke to my own personal experiences. My high school was very strict about specifically women’s dress code, as we were not allowed to show our collarbone, shoulders, legs (above the knee), could not have colored hair, wear any sort of hats, or certain types of jewelry. Although there were some rules “in place” for the boys, they were not regulated, as many guys walked around my school with tiny shorts on, pants exposing their underwear, tank tops, as well as all sorts of hats and hair colors/styles. When a girl told a teacher/administrator about a guy breaking dress code, we are told to move on or are overreacting, but if any faculty got a glimpse of a girl breaking dress code, we were immediately punished. This assumption that women need to control their own bodies because men can’t (and many other examples) shows how these cultural assumptions and standards can play into implicit bias and even stereotypes. We see in media, around us, and even hear from others that “women dont want to cover up” because they “use their bodies for attention of the opposite sex”, and that is why we would maybe choose to wear a tank top in school, work, or even just out in public. This has now become an assumption of women from some people (especially men), even though most people just want to wear a tank top because they like the top, or if it’s hot outside. 

The other part of the podcast that spoke to my own personal experiences was discussing how laws that are meant to be colorblind can be used to disproportionately affect communities of color, and can affect our words views. More specifically, Dr.Bezios example that “If you were raised in one of the affluent communities, you may have a view of drugs that it is mostly a problem in inner cities/minority populations, and you might know people in wealthy communities that do drugs but might not think of them as the “real problem””, and how american society perpetuates this. This makes me think back to specifically when I went to a mostly white, affluent, middle to high class elementary school, which had little to no diversity. We would have a “be drug free” week each school year to discuss drugs, and everyday during that week we would be shown a video in class about it, showing both why not to do drugs and hearing stories from people who did drugs. From the music, to the visuals, to the people chosen to be in these videos, all that was shown to us was minority populations in inner cities doing drugs, almost trying to stereotypically characterize these people as “thugs” or the “real problem”. Showing this to a bunch of 5th and 6th graders could greatly alter their implicit biases and assumptions about the world around them and certain groups of people. I ended up going to a very diverse middle and high school so I thankfully got to learn about different cultures/experiences and learn about “the real problems” vs the ones shown to me, but this truly shows how american society perpetuates certain assumptions.

In our society, we rely on the systems around us for everything we do and for guidelines for our daily life. Flanigan brings up an interesting point when it comes to the prescription system, specifically prescription drug laws and how they violate our rights to self-medication. These arguments over a doctor’s role vs. a patient’s decision in how they self-medicate quickly becomes an ethical one as the expertise of doctors gets placed over the personal judgement and feelings of the patient. Although there is no question that a doctor understands certain medications and treatments better than a patient, the patient themselves understands their health and should in the end have the final word when it comes to their bodies. Flanigan brings up a good point that this in turn would alter the position of physicians in the patients lives as they become regulators and help patients make informed decisions on their own.

Hidaligo on the other hand questions the role that citizens play in the regulation of immigration. I agree that the role of policing illegal immigration should not be in the hands of American citizens, but rather on the men and women hired to do so. Similarly to Flanigan, it brings up ethical concerns as would this then be considered a violation of the rights of the immigrants?

It is very easy for us as outsiders to make assumptions about immigrants and about patients going against the word/decisions of doctors when it comes to our health, but in the moment these people are doing what is best for the well-being. Although some people may disagree with their decisions, these people still have rights and must be treated that way.

The Flanigan reading was very thought-provoking, I had never considered looking at prescription paternalism from that perspective before, because I had assumed that it was in everyone’s best interest, and when she initially proposed the idea of allowing patients the ability to medicate themselves, I was immediately hesitant. The idea that a person without any medical training or knowledge would be able to freely use medication that one generally requires a prescription to obtain was shocking at first because it goes against all of my preconceived notions about the medical field. The argument seemed like a leap, but as she presented more evidence about the doctrine of informed consent and concepts of autonomy and authority, her logic began to make sense.

The point that resonated with me the most was the idea that if physicians can allow patients to refuse treatment that is not in the best interest of their health,  but is in line with what the patient believes to be their best interest, then physicians should also allow them to use prescription medicines in their best interest as well. The principle seemed different to me at first, but the both fit into the vein of doing what a physician would not consider to be in the patient’s best interest, and the patient doing what they consider to be their best Interest.

The only issue I had with her argument was the idea that patients are less likely to abuse drugs if they have access to them. Although I don’t think that prescription drugs are more dangerous to use than non-prescription/over the counter drugs if used correctly, and the patient is well-informed, I think that the accessibility of drugs to addicts could worsen the existing opioid crisis. However, I do think that these people with addictions would still find ways to get their hands on prescription drugs, and giving people access to these medications without a prescription may make them more hesitant to use them, therefore using them more carefully than they would with a doctor’s notice.

In the Hidalgo reading, I had not realized that there were expectations for citizens to actively regulate their interactions with illegal immigrants, but when I started reading I quickly realized that these are widely accepted practices that restrict people from giving unauthorized migrants rights that U.S. citizens have. I agree that it takes away liberty from the American people, which is a side I had not considered, assuming it only had a negative impact on unauthorized migrants, which is does, but the basis for it being unjust is the burden on the American people.

After reviewing what we did in class and thinking about it more, I agree with what my classmates were saying. Kendall, Celia and Tess all acknowledged that we need to remember history in order to make corrections. Therefore, I think it is a serious consideration to keep the names of buildings on campus. I can see both sides of the argument. While many people want to change the names as they remind them of the worst parts of history, others want them to stay because they are part of history and it is important to remember our past. It is important to remember our past because then we can make adjustments to the present in order to be more accepting. While I do believe this, these names of buildings do not directly impact me. Thus, I can not fully understand what others may be going through or thinking.

I disagree with Flanigan’s argument for not requiring prescription notes. I believe that, especially in this country, without a doctor’s note, no one should be able to access prescription strength drugs or medications. Unfortunately, yes, there will be situations like Danny where the obvious solution is to allow him to get insulin without a note, but there will also be situations with hypochondriacs or drug addicts receiving prescriptions too easily. I do not feel that she addressed addiction well enough in her proposal for not requiring prescription notes. I firmly believe that all addicts can get over their addictions, but a voluntary program to get clean is not a viable option.

Her argument did not completely fall through for me – I liked the part with the ‘behind the counter’ drugs and having psychotherapeutic/analgesic medications requiring a pharmacist or doctor to sign off. I believe that if she was to have her way and some drugs did not require a doctor’s note any longer, that was she proposed was a good option to maintain somewhat of a true pharmacy feel.

One part of the podcast in particular that resonated with me regarding the impact of assumptions was the mention of the Opioid Crisis in relation to rural Tennessee. I grew up in rural Tennessee and very much saw the impact of this assumption both in my education and in healthcare practices. My mom works as a physical therapist, and when I was younger she worked in home health. While of course she never spoke about her patients due to confidentiality, I would hear about the places she had to drive in order to treat patients who had limited mobility to the point that they couldn’t leave their houses to go to therapy. Dr. Bezio’s discussion of how the crackdown on opiates and other medication limited access to those who genuinely needed it to function. Yet, even in rural Tennessee, where the negative impacts are so prominent and visible, the assumptions and stereotypes that come with them persist. In fifth grade, my school also introduced D.A.R.E, and most of what I remember of it is a police officer telling us horror stories about the influences of drugs. Of what I remember, many of these stories included lots of stereotyping, highlighting people in poverty and people of color as the primary groups who became addicted to drugs, and advising the students to avoid plastic bottles on the side of the road because they might have been used in meth labs or for other drugs.

The podcast’s discussion of the opioid crisis brought up these memories for me, and provided an example of how stereotypes and assumptions harm both those who are being stereotyped, and those who apply the stereotypes to others. Even within a region that, for the most part, have similar resources available regarding healthcare and education, and even experience the harm caused by certain stereotypes and assumptions, still carry these same assumptions as implicit biases. Despite the true impact of the opioid crisis on individuals who genuinely need access to these medications, others in the community still receive the same education that suggests a very different narrative surrounding drugs and the opioid crisis that perpetuates even more harm through racist stereotypes and assumptions related to socioeconomic statuses.

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.

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.

I read Celia’s post and commented under it, but I decided to make another post about it instead. Like Tess and I said in class, along with Celia agreeing, we have to face our past and learn from it to not repeat wrongful actions. Like in sports, we watch films of our own games to see where we went wrong to try and change it for the next competition. If we did not have the film to see where the breakdown occurred, we would just keep running into that same barrier. Keeping the names as is, is ok, but I think we need to have a plaque or a way for people to know how our school was founded, why it is so screwed up, then how it will get fixed and stay that way. So to use my sports analogy, we can see the play that was drawn, why it broke down, and how we can fix it to not happen again.

Adding the Mitchell to the Freeman building is a good step, but if they put a little nice signage out next to the name of the building, that could be helpful.

I started off reading Flanigan’s article with skepticism. I could not imagine how she would justify the right to self-medication when in the face of the risks associated with inappropriate usage, the lack of information on appropriate usage, and the case of addiction. By the end of her article, however, I was thoroughly convinced, especially with her caveat of ‘behind the counter’ distribution. She laid out her argument exceedingly well and addressed nearly every point I came up with to counter her initial statement. 

Despite this, I was not satisfied by her point addressing addiction. It is not enough to merely allow addicts to enter a voluntary prohibition program. In the event of restructuring the prescription drug system to protect the right to self-medication, there need to be open, easily accessible, and free or affordable addiction recovery services and rehabilitation centers that are promoted within the pharmaceutical centers. I am also concerned about the ability of patients to give informed consent to drugs that we simply do not have a complete understanding of the effects and risks. Additionally, I am concerned about the persuasive power/propaganda of advertisements by drug companies who attempt to sell drugs to people who may not need them, and in doing so, the patient may request unnecessary medication or ignore more useful medication in favor of the advertised drug (you have the right to be informed on the possible risks and benefits of the drug you are requesting, but there is no requirement that anyone has to inform you on other potential medication or methods that might work better/have fewer risks). Lastly, I am concerned about the supply and demand aspect – that with an increased supply of prescription drugs, people who don’t ‘need’ the medication will have an easier time accessing it than people who do medically need it. This could change would also affect insurance and how we pay for medicine, possibly for the better, but not necessarily. 

Overall, I was convinced by her argument, had difficulty finding fault with her premises, and found that most inferences were reasonable. Despite my reservations, the argument is rational, and I was surprised by the extent to which she convinced me when I gave her argument a chance.