Morning after, over-the-counter medicine rejection by the FDA

[Pah]

Last year in 2004 the FDA announced that it, by virtue of it's acting-director sole decision on scientific concerns, would not approve sale of the pill to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex. Quoted from the Washington Post "[he] announced the rejection, he said the decision was his own, had been recently made and was based on scientific concerns"

The General Accounting Office is releasing a report that calls the action into question. It shows that the FDA's advisory panel, in late 2003, supported the decision on scientific grounds and that it's medical reviewers were also convinced. The leaders of the FDA expressed concern, at that time, about availability of the drug to young girls and how to keep it from them.

Morality vs science again - a minority religious morality overruled the scientific evaluation. Government supports it and government leaders lie about it.

Austin Cline said on About "This is what happens when the government becomes beholden to self-righteous, moralizing religious leaders who place religious ideology ahead of science and professional responsibility." I agree.

Sources
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/210471.htm?nl=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202607.html

This thread is about the inadvisablity of mixing science and religious morality in government.

 

[Melody]

"[he] announced the rejection, he said the decision was his own, had been recently made and was based on scientific concerns"

Bob,
Did I understand this correctly, that one person made this decision?

 

[jamaesi]

Disgusting.
I´m sure he really has to worry about getting pregnant.

And way to go, this will only cause more abortions. I hope he´s happy this little plan is going to backfire.

>:{

 

[Sunstone]

Everyone these days claims science is on their side. Even when people make decissions based purely on moral views, they claim that their decissions were based on science. In order to do so, they often distort the available science. This is tantamount to lying.

 

[Pah]

Bob,
Did I understand this correctly, that one person made this decision?

Apparently. It follows from what he said and the fact he was head of the agency at the time.

 

[Engyo]

While saddened, I am not surprised when politicians and bureaucrats act like politicians and bureaucrats.

As Henry Kissinger once said, "90% of politicians give the other 10% a bad name."

 

[Ceridwen018]

The FDA should certainly not be concerned with "young girls getting ahold of it, and how to keep it from them." What they should be concerned with are the possible risks that this pill poses.

However, women have been using this pill for awhile now. Obviously, side effects are not an issue. As far as young girls getting it, I think that's a moot point. Even a young girl could get one if she wanted. Its the equivalent of high schoolers getting beer, really--not always easy, but not nearly impossible.

 

[Sunstone]

Surely, this will make us a more moral country. Right?

 

[drekmed]

i was under the impression that the FDA voted on these things through a board?

 

[Pah]

i was under the impression that the FDA voted on these things through a board?

The boards probably did vote, but the final decision is always the choice of the department head.

 

[michel]

..................."When Steven Galson, then-acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, announced the rejection, he said the decision was his own, had been recently made and was based on scientific concerns.".................

This thread is about the inadvisablity of mixing science and religious morality in government.

Oh yeah ?

Quite. just about as good a mix as oil and water.

 

[WillieHutch]

While saddened, I am not surprised when politicians and bureaucrats act like politicians and bureaucrats.As Henry Kissinger once said, "90% of politicians give the other 10% a bad name."

great quote. nice to see our government thinking (and acting) in such realistic terms in 2005. idiots.