Georgia State University, Atlanta, USA.
HEC Forum. 2022 Sep;34(3):269-289. doi: 10.1007/s10730-020-09409-5.
In her Pharmaceutical Freedom, Jessica Flanigan argues that antibiotics can be regulated consistent with her otherwise largely deregulatory view with respect to pharmaceuticals and recreational drugs. I contend in this essay that the reasons for justifying antibiotic regulation are reasons that can be offered to justify the regulation of many other drugs, both pharmaceutical and recreational. After laying out the specifics of Flanigan's view, I suggest that it is amenable to the regulation of drugs like varenicline. Though such drugs can legitimately improve the quality of a patient's life by helping them quit smoking, they could be permissibly regulated if they expose others to impermissible risks. I then argue that recreational drugs like alcohol could be regulated using the same reasoning. In the penultimate section of this essay, I anticipate objections that one might have to my extension of arguments favoring antibiotic regulation to drugs correlated with aggression. Flanigan might find my extrapolation of her view as entirely plausible and accept that her view is relatively friendly to these regulations, or she might reconsider her antibiotic caveat if these regulations are overly paternalistic on her understanding. I conclude by briefly considering the benefits and drawbacks of adopting each view.
在《医药自由》一书中，杰西卡·弗拉尼根（Jessica Flanigan）认为，抗生素可以在她对药品和娱乐性药物的总体放松管制的观点下进行监管。我在本文中认为，抗生素监管的理由也是可以用来证明对许多其他药物进行监管的理由，这些药物既有医药用途，也有娱乐用途。在阐述了弗拉尼根观点的具体内容后，我提出，它可以适用于像伐伦克林（varenicline）这样的药物的监管。虽然这些药物可以通过帮助患者戒烟来提高他们的生活质量，但如果它们使他人面临不可接受的风险，那么这些药物就可以得到合理的监管。然后，我论证说，像酒精这样的娱乐性药物也可以用同样的理由进行监管。在本文的倒数第二段，我预计会有人反对我将支持抗生素监管的论点扩展到与攻击性相关的药物上。弗拉尼根可能会发现我对她观点的推断完全合理，并接受她的观点对这些监管相对友好，或者她可能会重新考虑她对抗生素的警告，如果这些监管在她看来过于家长式。最后，我简要考虑了采用每种观点的好处和缺点。
