After reading Flanigan’s article “Three Arguments Against Prescription Requirements” I did not know what to think. I agree completely that a doctor has no right to force someone to go with a specific treatment path or medicine, but I am having a really hard time with her argument about how people should have the right to choose what medicine they are going to take. I think that this could lead to a myriad of problems because people do not know as much about the medicines that they could be taking compared to the doctors. Becoming a doctor takes years of schooling and training for a reason, I do not think that people should just be able to say I think I will take this medicine for their medical problem because they do not know the risks or effectiveness of the drug. I think that people do deserve to have the freedom to choose which path they take for treatment, but I think that medicine choice is something that should be left with the medical professional.

I don’t agree with the first article at all. I agree with the fact that sometimes medical professionals may not recommend what the patient wants, but there is a reason why we trust their opinions. Medical doctors have been to medical school and they are extremely knowledgeable about medicine. In the article, there is an example about Danny who wants insulin but his doctor recommends diet and exercise. In this example, I believe that Danny should have a conversation with his doctor. I think that doctors want what is best for the patient and if you really want something different then the doctor is initially recommending, talk to them about your options.

I do agree with the second article on the other hand. I think if a law is blatantly unjust and discriminatory that citizens have the obligation to not listen to that law. Just because it is a law doesn’t always mean that it is morally just. I generally tend to not trust politicians to make decisions that are best for their constituents. Of course, there are exceptions, but in general, politicians are bought by organizations with the financial resources to fund their campaign. The NRA for example, has given a lot of money to certain politicians and I think that that means that they are no longer making choices that have the best interest of the people in mind. In this situation I believe that the people have an obligation to disobey those laws.

Flanagan’s article brought up a lot of interesting points. I neither agree nor disagree with what she says because the points she brings up in her arguments make sense but they are not necessarily what everyone will agree with. I would say I’m neutral, however, I think I would lean towards the disagree side more. I understand where she’s coming from, that people should have a right to self-medication but prescription laws are there for a reason. Which is to prevent and alleviate overdose epidemics from people who abuse their medication. Changing the prescription requirements could potentially lead to a greater, dangerous outcome.

I think Hidalgo brought up some very interesting arguments. In his piece, Hidalgo argues, “the citizens of states that enforce unjust immigration restriction have duties to disobey certain immigration laws.” (Hidalgo 1) This idea reminds me of a concept that I learned in a history course, that legality can infer morality, but at times, the two can be independent of one another. In my class, we primarily looked at the Abolitionist period, in which at the time, slavery was a legal practice and people used its legality as a defense for their inhumane actions. While slave owners were not doing anything illegal in regards to the legal system at the time,  it is now looked back in history as a dark period and abolitionists are celebrated for their actions to prohibit the act despite its legality. I agree with Hidalgo that it is morally ok to disobey/fight against laws; I think it is up to history to determine if those who stood by or fought the law is on the side of morality.

Secondly, I found the Flanigan reading to be particularly interesting, as I had never heard an argument for this issue before. I agree with Dr. Flanigan that patients should be able to refuse treatment if they do not deem it necessary, however, I cannot wrap my head around justifying giving people the choice over what medicines to take. Flanigan quotes Bioethicist Robert Veatch, stating “There is no reason to believe that a physician or any other expert in only one component of well-being should be able to determine what constitutes the good for another being.” (Flanigan 581) I think there are some things in life that I think speaking to experts will always lead to better results than just doing something by themselves. From personal training to getting a wealth advisor to manage your portfolio for saving, I think people are always better off talking to an expert in the field. I think this is critically important when it comes to getting medicine. In the other two examples, people that go to the gym by themselves or invest their own money will typically make progress, but not at the same rate as an expert. For visiting a doctor, the consequences are much direr, and I think it is unrealistic to assume that more people would be better off not visiting a doctor and medicating themselves than visiting a doctor. Doctors have to go through extensive training that takes years, are more in touch with what is new in the world of medicine,  and have likely dealt with similar cases from past patients who suffered similar illnesses or injuries. While I agree that patients should have the right to refuse treatement, I cannot fathom a world in which society is better off by prescribing their own medicine because ‘they know their body better.’

I liked this article because it takes normative concepts and applies them to a specific, real-world scenario. It also challenges conventional wisdom and common practice. Sections 7, 8, and 9 in particular were interesting because they outlined a potential way to implement a prescription drug system that respected the right to self-medication and immediately addressed the two most obvious objections to that proposal. In Section 8 and 9, the author points out that people have the right to do things that are risky, but that does not mean that the government should be able to prevent them from doing it. She also points out that concerns about mixing dangerous drugs and potential addiction to pharmaceuticals are far greater than the actual incidence of those things, similar to the murder-suicide questions from Mindbugs. We think people would mix drugs and get addicted because of media coverage and pop culture, but the author correctly points out that many people illegally using pharmaceuticals are doing so for legitimate medical reasons.

I thought Dr. Flanigan’s article against prescription drug restriction was intriguing as she argued the importance of preserving and enabling self-medication.  I was surprised by her explanation of the paternalistic history of prescription drugs; that as individuals expected more coverage from the federal government, there were inherently more restrictions put in place that prevented self-medication.  Although there were efforts to relieve the system, like the Doctrine of Informed Consent (DIC), prescription drugs continued to be less accessible.  I understand and see the normative arguments from both medical practitioners and patients, and it would be interesting to see how a highly dependable system can shift to promote the right to self-medication, as Dr. Flanigan suggests.

This was such an interesting read, as I have never found the lack of self-medication to be any sort of issue. While it was fascinating hearing her arguments, especially the example with the difference between a diabetic person wanting diet/exercise vs. insulin, there was still certain itching questions I couldn’t let go.

For one, in her championing of autonomy, it still seems like Flanigan supports being informed, in that patients will still have information readily available to them. However, she says individuals can “opt-out” from relevant information … huh? The prescription system makes sense to me because doctors spend years and years of studying to understand how drugs work for the body, but with self-medication … an average joe can just choose to be ignorant? Weird.

I am also skeptical that this self-medication will only stay within one’s self. What about accidents? I suppose accidents occur no matter what, but I just find the consequentalist framework more valuable for this issue than deontic.

Reading this article was a very odd experience for me. Initially, I strongly disagreed with the conclusion Jessica Flanigan was arguing. I don’t think we should allow people to simply self-medicate, as that often leads to addiction and to making the problem worse. However, as the article went on, I began to realize I agreed with her premises and sub-conclusions. I certainly think people have the right to refuse treatment, however faulty I might view their justification, and I believe in the general principle that people have the right to do whatever they want to their own bodies as long as they don’t hurt others. However, despite agreeing with all of that, I still stubbornly disagreed with her overall conclusion. But why? Even while I’m writing this, I honestly don’t know. I will need to do some more thinking to ultimately decide where I fall on this issue, especially since it isn’t a topic I’ve really put any thought into before.

On page 581, Flanigan quotes Veatch, who states “There is no reason to believe that a physician or any other expert in only one component of well-being should be able to determine what constitutes the good for another being.”  This is where I started to disagree with Flanigan. I understand and follow his train of thought in laying out how patients should have a right to self medication. But I wondered after reading this quote, why have doctors at all then? If a patient knows what is best for them, then why should we even go to a doctor in the first place and consult another opinion. I agree, patients should have a right to refuse medical advice if they so please. But I do not agree with the idea that “there is no reason to believe that doctors can determine what is best.” This idea seems irrational to me; I do agree with the idea of DIC, but not this quote/train of thought in particular.

I think the best argument for DIC is one of coercion. This is how I justified it best in my head: if the whole point of going to a doctor and seeking medical help is to maximize your well-being, then you should do what will give you the most utility/happiness. Doctors are trained professionals that can help by giving advice and properly diagnosing and treating. However, only you know what will make you the most well off. For example, if surgery is not in your best interest, then you have a right to refuse the surgery. It is wrong for a doctor to coerce one into getting the surgery because the decision to refuse it is not one that provides any level of utility/well-being to the doctor that is greater than the utility/well- being that it brings to the patient. Therefore, “coercion or deceptive inference” (pp 581) is wrong.

From first reading Flanigan’s thesis, I did not agree. The concept of making prescription grade drugs available without a prescription seemed to be getting too close to anarchy for me. The concept of getting rid of the checks that are intended to keep people from abusing drugs seems dangerous. While I understood the argument of DIC and how it should work in reverse as well, the idea that doctors should respect a patient’s decision if it is not in the best interest of the patient’s health does not sit right with me.

A large part of my disagreement comes from biases that I hold that restrict me from being able to agree with Flanigan despite her laying out her case well. A large of portion of my family are in careers that are STEM focused. The importance of modern medicine was instilled in me young. One of my uncles was a doctor as a hospital for a long time that would often see cases of opioid addition. His town in Ohio was one of the capitals for opioid addiction. He told us how awful it was to see these addiction cases. While Flanigan addressed this concern in the article, the concern I still have for it is enough for me to reject Flanigan’s argument. However, the decriminalization of prescription drugs, especially in these cases, still resonates with me. I agree with this portion of her argument. The decriminalization of prescription drugs will allow for better treatment options of those that suffer from drug addiction while still allowing for the drugs to be prescribed.