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.

Flanigan’s article made me consider the entire prescription drug system in an entire way! I was raised in a culture that doesn’t encourage taking prescribed medicines and relying on natural remedies, so I didn’t have much background information or preconceived feelings in favor or against the topic when reading it. I loved that the structure of the article made her thought process easier to follow and gave me an understanding of DIC while still using scenarios to give further context. The statement that stood out to me the most was, “Like other basic rights, self-regarding decisions about our own bodies warrant particularly strong protections from state interference” because it broke down the argument to a simple, clean form (view equation below) that, as Flanigan mentioned, can be applied in so many areas beyond self-medication.

Patient autonomy = basic right = morally valuable

I had read Hidalgo’s article in a previous leadership class and even attended his lecture on this topic last semester. It can be difficult to put this argument into action, and I appreciate that Hidalgo acknowledge’s this fact in the risk objection section stating, “Morality can be demanding”.  I am an American citizen but grew up in the Mexican culture. Living two hours away from the border, I was taught to always carry my i.d., not speak Spanish in front of authority, and never, NEVER, give people a reason to question my citizenship. This fear that is so deeply woven into my identity made me both hesitant, yet intrigued by Hidalgo’s argument the first time I read it. Although I didn’t agree with most immigration laws beforehand, I had never considered that it is my responsibility as a human to oppose them. The distinction between doing and allowing challenged my instinctive “stay quiet” attitude towards immigration.

I was very interested in Flanigan’s argument about prescription requirements, as I have never questioned our country’s prescription laws, but I do not agree with her argument.  I think prescription laws are actually very important because they act as boundaries that stop the abuse of medicines.  In her argument, she uses the example of a man who has diabetes and his doctor prescribes him with diet and exercise but the man wants to use insulin instead but cannot obtain it without the doctor’s prescription.  While in this case, the man should have access to insulin even though it wasn’t his doctor’s first treatment choice, if we took away prescription laws, then people not diagnosed with diabetes could have access to it.  Similarly, with Adderall and other ADHD medicines, if we took away prescription laws then these medicines would become so much more widely abused.  Even replacing prescription laws with a “behind the counter” rule would not stop the problem of abuse because we have several medications like this in the U.S. which must be sold behind the counter and you must be 18 or older to buy them, but that is the only qualification.  If Adderall was sold behind counters for anyone 18 and older to buy, almost every student on college campuses would be using them.  Furthermore, prescriptions are important because they allow physicians to determine what dose of the medicine you need.  If we sold prescriptions as “behind the counter” medicines then people might also start taking prescriptions that are too strong which would also be dangerous.  I agree with Flanigan that if we are diagnosed with a disease or condition that we should have access to all possible treatment options, whether they be prescription or not, I think that the access to prescription medicines should stop there.

While I understand what Hildago is arguing in this essay, I have a hard time accepting that it is okay to break laws.  Basically, Hildago is saying that because immigration laws are morally unjust, it is okay to break them. But saying that these laws are unjust is subjective. Also, we live in a democracy where we elect leaders to make these laws. If we don’t agree with the laws that our leaders make, then we can elect new leaders. Furthermore, perhaps the laws are unjust, but if the goal is to be moral, then breaking the law is immoral as well.

Hildago addresses these counter arguments, but not well. Essentially he claims that immigration is an outlier in our democracy. Again, this is subjective. Just because a person does not agree with a law, does not mean that it is moral for them to break it.

Dr. Jessica Flanigan’s “Three arguments against prescription requirements” was an incredibly interesting argument that brings ethical issues into the medicinal/healthcare contexts. Flanigan posits that “prescription drug laws violate patients’ rights to self-medication” and after reading through her well-argued paper and thinking about the ethical considerations we’ve learned through this class, I agree with her (579). This paper makes a strong ethical argument and is backed by anecdotal and statistical evidence to support the claim– it is unethical that we do not allow patients to carry out prescription treatment plans without permission from a physician. Flanigan argues that much of this system is embedded in paternalism that limits patients’ abilities to opt for medication when they want it; instead, we should have a “non-prohibitive drug system” where “prescription-grade drugs should be widely available without a physician’s notice” (580). Flanigan essentially argues for patient autonomy– even if their decisions go against physicians’ recommendations– because it is unjust that patients can opt-out of medication but cannot opt-in when they want it. Flanigan notes that one outlier to her argument is patient exposure to potentially dangerous drugs.

Given what we have learned so far about normative ethics, I agree with Flanigan’s proposal to remake the prescription drug system in the United States, and I think she makes a strong case for this idea. While I am not well-versed in the healthcare or prescription drug system, I do know there are problems and the “big pharma” concept is a huge problem for patients across the country, where big medical companies do profit off people’s suffering. I think with the potential decision to allow patients to decide if they want to self-medicate, the prescription drug system would be more open and improve the patient-physician dynamic, making it less authoritative. People should be able to make decisions about their own bodies and the state should recognize rights to self-medication, as Flanigan argues.

Anna Marston

In her essay “Three arguments against prescription requirements,” Flanigan aims to argue that self-medication should be legal, just as legal as the DIC is. While there may be instances that self-medication could pose threats to human life, I agree with Flanigan’s overall stance. Aside from the hardcore facts such as “the introduction of a prescription-only category of drugs correlated with more fatal poisonings” (Flanigan, 582), I also thought the idea of self consent when it comes to prescription drugs was compelling and valid. In the regards of medical practitioners being completely transparent and recommending certain medical treatments, patients have the right to accept or refuse the course of treatment suggested to them by their doctors. However, if there is a certain treatment that they know of, such as the diabetes example where the patient wanted to be treated with insulin, they are not  allowed to receive this treatment. If their doctor were to give them another form of treatment that they do not accept and they know of another cure, then in my opinion their self consent would be violated. Currently, a patient is completely allowed to choose their course of treatment if and only if the doctor has suggested it, even if there is an alternative they know of and would prefer.

I received a score that was very unexpected. I received a score that I am proud of. I have suffered from GAD for several years and if you met me in high school I believe one would assume that I was a jittery emotional reck. However, after years of work and learning, I feel as if I have a greater grasp on my life, more control and a better ability to be who I want to be and not who I feel like I have to be. The results indicated that my “data indicate what we call a strong implicit association of Self with Calm over Anxious” and I “ received this result because you were much faster to respond when “Self” was paired with “Calm” than when “Self” was paired with “Anxious.” 

However, as a psychology major, I have taken the Implicit Bias Test many times and I do not like it. I feel it is more an assessment of hand-eye coordination and eye-tracking. I feel as if implicit bias is complex and these tests are misleading.

For my Implicit Association test, I looked to see if implicitly associate mentally ill individuals with danger. The results of this test were that I make a weak association of this kind. This is not surprising, as I have family members impacted by mental illness, likely giving me a less negative association. I am skeptical of whether or not the speed to which I match words of danger with mental illnesses represents my underlying beliefs about this large community. Nevertheless, the results were nothing too shocking.

First of all, I mentioned this test in a prior blog and feel like a wizard because I did not realize that we would be taking the test ourselves a few days later! I have taken many variations of this test for a variety of other assignments, both in high school and in college. The results of those showed that I almost always have a bias towards something or other. This time I chose to take a test that I had not taken prior. Considering my past performance on the tests, I expected to see some sort of bias, and that was exactly what I got. I think that taking these kinds of tests are very important because to combat your own implicit biases, you must know what they are first. One issue that arises with this is those who need to confront their implicit biases but don’t recognize them won’t opt to take the test in the first place.