Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RealMuLan who wrote (15045)	11/7/2004 10:42:09 PM
From: RealMuLan	Respond to of 116555

This letter dated back on October 22, 2002<g>-- Legislative Update: Dr. W. David Hager Opposition Letter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/22/2002 This letter was signed by over 90 organizations opposed to the possible nomination of Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. October 22, 2002 President George W. Bush 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Bush: The undersigned organizations are writing to express our concern regarding the status of the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee at the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter has lapsed. As a result, your administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. FDA advisory panels often have near-final say over crucial health issues, and we feel strongly that science, rather than politics and ideology, should dictate the composition and work of the committee. The Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology, and related specialties, and makes recommendations to the FDA Commissioner. The panel is expected to lead the FDA’s review of hormone-replacement therapy for menopausal women, a major controversy in health care today. We are gravely concerned about the possible appointment of W. David Hager, M.D., the author of As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, who Time magazine reported on October 5 is slated to head the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. As national organizations dedicated to improving access to health care for all women, we are concerned that Dr. Hager's adherence to his views, which are far outside the mainstream of medicine, make him the wrong choice for this position. Time magazine cites two familiar sources familiar with Dr. Hager’s private practice as saying that Dr. Hager he refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. He has gone so far as to suggest that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the Bible and praying. In addition, as an editor and contributing author of The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies and the Family, Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient. Dr. Hager, who serves on the Physicians Resource Council of Focus on the Family, recently assisted the Christian Medical Association in a "citizens' petition" calling upon the FDA to reverse itself on the abortion drug mifepristone, saying it has endangered the lives and health of women. The FDA determined in October of 2000 that mifepristone is safe and effective for use by American women. Any suggestion that mifepristone should be treated differently than other drugs and devices is indefensible. Dr. Hager’s record of using ideological beliefs to guide his medical decision-making and recommendations calls into question his ability to effectively chair the FDA advisory committee. Women rely on the FDA to ensure that they have access to safe and effective drugs. We are concerned that Dr. Hager’s strong personal beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that could improve women’s health. In a pluralistic society, there is no place at the FDA for someone who, based on personal beliefs, would deny unmarried women access to technologies that are a part of mainstream medical care and to which they have a legal right. Once again, we strongly urge you to choose members of this important panel on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and ideology. American women deserve no less. populationconnection.org