Is Visiting the Pharmacy Like Voting at the Poll? Behavioral Asymmetry in Pharmaceutical Freedom

Abstract

Jessica Flanigan argues that individuals have the right to self-medicate. Flanigan presents two arguments in defense of this right. The first she calls the epistemic argument and the second she calls the rights-based argument. I argue that the right to self-medicate hangs and falls on the rights-based argument. This is because for the epistemic argument to be sound agents must be assumed to be epistemically competent. But, Flanigan’s argument for a constitutionally mandated right to self-medicate models agents as epistemically incompetent. For Flanigan, agents are different at the pharmacy than they are at the polls. I identify this behavioral asymmetry and advocate a symmetric and realistic behavioral postulate for both arguments. The result, however, is that the success of the epistemic argument becomes contingent which fails to justify a constitutionally mandated right. I proceed to raise skepticism about the rights-based argument as well. I conclude that there is reason to be skeptical that these arguments can justify a constitutionally mandated right to self-medicate. Ultimately, a bottom-up approach to pharmaceutical ethics is preferable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    My point here is methodological and can be seen as being part of what Kogelmann (Forthcoming, p. 1) calls a methodenstreit—a term that refers to “an intense debate over the proper methodology of political philosophy.”

  2. 2.

    Put more carefully, if we have one right, then we, normatively speaking, have both and, legally speaking, should have both.

  3. 3.

    Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for advocating additional clarity here.

  4. 4.

    A reviewer asks why we should accept this premise. Ultimately, I believe, in line with the reviewer’s question, that it is precisely this premise that should be challenged in the argument. I take this up later in the paper. It is worth emphasizing, though, that my aim at this stage is merely to extract and formalize Flanigan’s arguments, not to defend or to reject any of them.

  5. 5.

    I am grateful to a reviewer for stressing that such inducements of treatment are not necessarily immoral as doctors may be morally obliged to pursue such channels within certain medical contexts. Whether doctors are actually being manipulative depends on what we mean by the term as well as the specifics of the case. How and where to draw the line both on what is manipulation and what is not and on what is permissible manipulation and what impermissible manipulation are vast questions that I could not adequately address here. What is important for present purposes is that Flanigan’s Patient Protection Justification entails that the overwhelming majority of (perhaps all) manipulation cases are morally wrong.

  6. 6.

    I use the term “behavioral” in a capacious sense to include epistemic features.

  7. 7.

    For a direct reply to Caplan, see Lomasky (2008). For a general expressivist methodological alternative, see Brennan and Lomasky (1993).

  8. 8.

    Notice that your friend is not being coerced or manipulated or induced in any way into picking the objectively “right” (whatever that may mean) partner. Rather, the friend is just being coerced out of picking what seems like the obviously wrong partner.

  9. 9.

    A medical context, specifically organ donation, in which the notion of normative consent has been applied can be seen in Saunders (2010).

  10. 10.

    For a different take on the redistribution of body parts, see Fabre (2006).

  11. 11.

    Of course, the mere option of being able to restrict access can be unjustifiably abused.

  12. 12.

    For a discussion of the value of local knowledge in a different context, see Robson (2018).

  13. 13.

    I would like to thank Chris Freiman for an extremely productive conversation, Greg Robson for providing his characteristically incisive and rich comments, and two anonymous reviewers for the journal for offering helpful comments on the paper.

References

  1. Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2017). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Benn, S. I. (1967). Freedom and persuasion. Australasian Journal of Philosophy,45(3), 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Benn, S. I. (1988). A theory of freedom. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bicchieri, C. (2016). Norms in the wild: How to diagnose, measure and change social norms. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brennan, G., & Lomasky, L. (1993). Democracy and decision: The pure theory of electoral preference. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brennan, J. (2011). The right to a competent electorate. Philosophical Quarterly,61(245), 700–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brennan, J. (2014). Why not capitalism? New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brennan, J. (2016). Against democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brennan, J. (2018). A libertarian case for mandatory vaccination. Journal of Medical Ethics,44(1), 37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buchanan, J. M., & Brennan, G. (2000). The reason of rules. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Buss, S. (2005). Valuing autonomy and respecting persons: Manipulation, seduction, and the basis of moral constraints. Ethics,115(2), 195–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Caplan, B. (2008). The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Carroll, J. (Forthcoming). Is ideal theory anarchic? The Journal of Politics.

  14. Cohen, G. A. (2009). Why not socialism?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Conly, S. (2012). Against autonomy: Justifying coercive paternalism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coons, C., & Weber, M. (Eds.). (2014). Manipulation: Theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dougherty, T. (2013). Sex, lies, and consent. Ethics,123(4), 717–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Boston: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Estlund, D. (2007). Democratic authority: A philosophical framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fabre, C. (2006). Whose body is it anyway? Justice and the integrity of the person. Whose body is it anyway?. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Faden, R., & Beauchamp, T. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to others. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Flanigan, J. (2013). Adderall for all: A defense of pediatric neuroenhancement. HEC Forum,25(4), 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Flanigan, J. (2014). A defense of compulsory vaccination. HEC Forum,26(1), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Flanigan, J. (2017). Pharmaceutical freedom: Why patients have a right to self-medicate. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Freiman, C. (2017a). Ideal theory. In J. Brennan, B. van der Vossen, & D. Schmidtz (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of libertarianism (pp. 301–311). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Freiman, C. (2017b). Unequivocal justice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Freiman, C., & Lerner, A. (2015). Self-ownership and disgust: Why compulsory body part redistribution gets under our skin. Philosophical Studies,172(12), 3167–3190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hayek, F. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review,35(4), 519–530.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives,5(1), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kavka, G. S. (1996). Why even morally perfect people would need government. In J. T. Sanders & J. Narveson (Eds.), For and against the state: New philosophical readings. Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kogelmann, B. (2020). The future of political philosophy: Non-ideal and west of Babel. The Review of Austrian Economics, 33(1), 237–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77(6), 1121–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kukathas, C. (2003). The liberal archipelago. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Levy, J. T. (2016). There is no such thing as ideal theory. Social Philosophy and Policy,33(1–2), 312–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Locke, J. (1980). Second treatise of government. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lomasky, L. (2008). Swing and a myth: A review of Caplan’s “The Myth of the Rational Voter”. Public Choice,135(3/4), 469–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Madison, J. (2001). The Federalist No. 51. In R. Scignliano (Ed.), The Federalist (pp. 297–302). New York: Modern Library.

  40. Marshall, J., Thomas, L, Lane, N. M, Holmes, G. M, Arcury, T. A, Randolph R, et al. (2017). Health disparities in Appalachia. Raleigh, NC: The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mulligan, T. (2017). Plural voting for the twenty-first century. The Philosophical Quarterly,68(271), 286–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nozick, R. (2013). Anarchy, state, and utopia (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ostrom, E. (2015). Governing the Commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Pronin, E., & Kugler, M. B. (2007). Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,43(4), 565–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pronin, E., Lin, D., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,28(3), 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice: Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Robson, G. (2018). Justice theorizing and local knowledge. In P. J. Boettke, V. H. Storr, & J. S. Lemke (Eds.), Exploring the political economy and social philosophy of F.A. Hayek (pp. 35–54). New York: Rowman and Littlefield International.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Saunders, B. (2010). Normative consent and opt-out organ donation. Journal of Medical Ethics,36(2), 84–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Schmidtz, D. (2016). A realistic political ideal. Social Philosophy and Policy,33(1–2), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sharot, T. (2011). The optimism bias. Current Biology,21(23), R941–R945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Simmons, A. J. (1989). Locke’s state of nature. Political Theory,17(3), 449–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Simmons, A. J. (1995). On the edge of anarchy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Taylor, J. S. (2012). The value of autonomy and the right to self-medication. Journal of Medical Ethics,38(10), 587–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Thomson, J. J. (1971). A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs,1(1), 47–66.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology,5(2), 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wertheimer, A. (2003). Consent to sexual relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey Carroll.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carroll, J. Is Visiting the Pharmacy Like Voting at the Poll? Behavioral Asymmetry in Pharmaceutical Freedom. HEC Forum (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-020-09414-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Rights
  • Behavioral asymmetry