There are some people in America who feel the government should reduce restrictions placed on certain prescription medications. To get any kind of prescription medication today a person has to go see a doctor and get that doctor to write a prescription for them. This obviously places liability on the doctor and thus the doctor may be reluctant to prescribe certain medications without a thorough exam or as part of a step-up treatment plan. For some (those with good insurance) this isn't an issue. Good insurance can make doctors accessible and inexpensive. For those without insurance, this approach can be really restrictive.
The advent of the internet now puts more information than ever into an individual's hands. A person can look up their symptoms, find a likely diagnosis, and create a common treatment plan in minutes, rather than waiting perhaps days for a medical appointment. The a major downside to this approach is when symptoms are less obvious or might be indicative of a more obscure or far more serious illness. Also, treatments involving prescription drugs are obviously restricted for people who would diagnose and treat themselves.
The sentiment generally goes, "Drug laws aren't in place because of you or me. They're in place for the rest of society, who would find ways to harm themselves otherwise." Obviously, some drugs would have to be restricted in any case. Narcotics have too much potential for abuse, and antibiotics, if overused, could create drug-resistant bacteria. Besides those two classes of drugs, there are many drugs out there that may significantly improve people's lives but are hard to access.
My question is: do you think that controls on prescription drugs are too restrictive? Should individuals be allowed more freedom to make decisions that affect their own lives, or does government hold a responsibility to protect the individuals in society who might potentially harm themselves if drugs controls were removed?
David Nadermann
