Abstract

Many pharmaceuticals are available to patients only with a physician’s prescription. Although it is often not recognized as such, this is a classic example of paternalism in public policy. Pharmaceuticals are often perceived as carrying dangerous side effects. Access is restricted to protect patients from their own bad decisions. This chapter explores the moral justification for such paternalism and finds it wanting. It raises the question of whether there is adequate justification for this restriction. Consistency requires that pharmaceuticals posing dangers primarily to the individual be available to competent consumers and that even moderate risks to third parties be tolerated. The chapter begins by arguing that all drug usage involves evaluative judgments about the relative benefits and harms of the agents and that physicians must make value judgments in deciding whether to prescribe.