Many people don’t trust the government, and after close examination, it’s not difficult to tell why.
It’s always in trouble on the news for a “cover-up” that hid something important from the public. It docks enormous amounts of money from our paychecks for reasons explained only by mysterious abbreviations. And it employs an army of men who dress like characters from the Matrix and work for an agency with a name that begins with the word “secret.”
The most recent reason for being suspicious of the government is one that has not been kept secret, however. The news has been flooded with stories about the various flubs made by the Food and Drug Administration.
The agency that controls nearly everything we put in our mouths and our bodies, from food to injections, has not been proving itself to be very trustworthy of late.
First there was the Vioxx incident. The FDA approved the drug, only to find that it causes heart attacks and strokes. This discovery wasn’t made public, however, until after the estimated number of victims – 100,000 – grew too large to ignore. Yes, the FDA knew about the risk for an extended period of time before warning consumers.
How could such a gross act of negligence occur? Drug companies are supposed to be required by the FDA to conduct studies on their medications after they are released on the market, but according to the Boston Globe, only two out every three studies drug companies promised have actually been done.
This means that the prescription you get after visiting the doctor may have serious consequences you know nothing about, and those consequences could be life-threatening. All because the FDA doesn’t have enough muscle to force drug companies to observe their own products.
The approval process at the FDA does not seem to be in any better shape. The organization was recently sued by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights for waiting so long to decide if the morning-after pill should be available without a prescription.
The Los Angeles Times reported from court transcripts that the former commissioner of the FDA, Lester M. Crawford, had ignored his top subordinates’ advice to make the pill available without a prescription, personally overruling the recommendations of medical reviewers.
Conservatives believe easy access to the pill would encourage promiscuity in young people, and Crawford bowed to the pressure in spite of his staff’s opinions.
Accusations flew that Crawford was playing politics with America’s health, and the FDA’s women’s health chief resigned in protest. Crawford suddenly resigned shortly after – without mentioning the pill in his farewell address, of course.
These incidents have been mostly underplayed by the press, but if you look hard enough, the turmoil is not difficult to see. The FDA is not only struggling with its current image, but also the nature of its organization as a whole.
Although issues like the war in Iraq or the state of the economy may seem more important and immediate, the FDA personally affects every single American every day.
Does your soft drink contain too much of a chemical that causes cancer? Are the pain killers you take after surgery really safe? Simply giving products a nod from the FDA and a thumbs-up does not provide the information necessary to answer these questions.
When the FDA’s panel of medical experts discusses the pros and cons of a new drug, it should do so in public.
Its talks could be broadcast on a medical version of C-SPAN. Although, like C-SPAN, the station would have fairly low ratings and be used mostly to induce afternoon naps, interested parties, such as doctors, pharmacists and potential consumers of the product being debated would have full access to information about all of the costs, benefits and uncertainties of the new product.
This open way of conducting business would also put a spotlight on the drug companies that neglect to conduct follow-up studies. In order to stay in business, companies would need to maintain a good public image. As evidenced by Crawford’s behavior, political pressure is a very effective motivator.
This kind of transparency would also prevent a single individual from making a decision for the entire nation, such as Crawford’s rejection of the morning-after pill.
It might also finally answer other important questions, such as why the FDA is so concerned with preventing cheap prescription drugs from overseas from reaching consumers in the U.S. and whether Oreo cookies are really all that bad for us.
The FDA is an enormous organization that holds our lives in its hands and is fueled by tax dollars that we pay. It’s time we demanded to be in the know. Secrets don’t make friends, healthy food or safe drugs.