Opinion: Replacing chocolate with the Bible
The FDA's decisions on women's health cannot rely on religious or moral values
Maressa Brown
| |
|
In "Stress and the Woman's Body," authors Dr. W. David Hager and his wife, Linda, say that women who suffer from the physical pains associated with PMS should be offered unusual cures. Chocolate, extra sleep and a quick jog aren't on the menu. To get rid of a headache, the Hagers have some heady reading material in mind--Matthew 13:44-46 and for PMS, Romans 5:1-11.
Dr. W. David Hager was appointed to the Food and Drug Administration Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee by the Bush administration in 2002 and then again in June 2004. The openly pro-life physician is the subject of an email circulating on the Internet, which states Hager is rumored to be Bush's choice to head the FDA. Bush's appointment of Hager would not require congressional approval.
The possible appointment of Hager to a higher FDA position is a reflection of the Bush agenda. The appointment of Hager, and other actions taken by the FDA in the past four years are blatant steps by Mr. Bush to obliterate a woman's right to choose. In the next four years, the government's priority of religion and politics over science and safety for women could be expected.
With Hager a deciding voice on the committee, this week brings a controversial drug review. Meeting tomorrow and Thursday for the first time since 2001, the committee will review a new Procter & Gamble drug called Intrinsa, which like a "female Viagra," treats low sexual desire in menopausal women. Conservatives have seen this new drug as an open door to attack various means of birth control, which have a similar makeup. Hager could quite possibly be in agreement with these politicians, given his track record.
Time Magazine reported in 2002 that, "In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager did not return several calls for comment." While it's true that the country is at a crossroads and divide when it comes to ideologies, rights should not be compromised for the sake of a doctor's religious convictions. Hager's track record is an eerie example of what may affect the decision-making on Intrinsa this week.
Among other actions taken already that reflect a dangerous link between religion and science include a decision to deny women over-the-counter access to the emergency contraceptive levonorgestrel (sold under the brand name "Plan B"). In July 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists' updated report, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking stated, "Numerous FDA officials and medical advisers to FDA involved in and familiar with the approval process call the move an almost unprecedented repudiation of government scientific expertise."
Scientists were endorsing a product approved not only by their research but through example as well. According to the UCS' report, "Public health officials and researchers around the world widely agree that Plan B is a safe and effective means to prevent an unplanned pregnancy and to reduce the frequency of abortions. The drug is available without a prescription in 33 countries around the world. Its switch to nonprescription status in the United States was also endorsed by some 70 scientific organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics."
Food and Drug Administration's task is to approval drugs that are safe and effective. By ignoring scientific proof that a drug can be used, officials of the Food and Drug Administration are stepping on the toes of not only science but the American people's rights. The decision to outlaw "Plan B" was a compromise of the Constitution for what a few consider moral values.
Scientists are not the only ones questioning the path the FDA is headed down. It seems some internal staff question decisions made in the name of conservative politics. In an internal FDA memo obtained by the Associated Press, Steven Galson, acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evalution and Research, apparently tried to deny accusations that political considerations could have played in the decision, stating that, "Some staff have expressed the concern that this decision is based on non-medical implications of teen sexual behavior, or judgments about the propriety of this activity."
The call for morally unbiased judgment and adherence to scientific fact is crucial for the Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Officials like Hager and Galson, with their openly anti-choice views, should not be given the opportunity to axe important sexual or birth control drugs for women on the basis of religious ideologies. If this week's decision follows in the committee's former footsteps, the Bush administration and Hager will pose a serious, long-term threat to the well being of American women.