|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Monday, October 21, 2002She's worried that his anti-abortion stance will endanger the future availability of abortifacients as over the counter medication, and the future of RU-486 to be used for other purposes: Today mifepristone is not only used for early abortions and other treatments but it's on the FDA's fast track for use as an antipsychotic, especially for post-partum depression. Anyone wonder why Hager's, um, profile, is high? ''Anyone who can say RU-486 is dangerous and should be overturned is ignoring the science,'' says Pearson. First of all, being pro-life doesn't mean that Hager will object to RU-486 for purposes other than abortion. We have plenty of drugs out there that can kill a fetus that we use for other purposes, and Dr. Hager has probably used them in his practice. Secondly, to say that having concerns about the safety of RU-486 is to "ignore science" is itself to ignore science, and reality. It's a drug that causes unpleasant side effects and complications that can potentially require surgery to correct. Just a few weeks ago, the media were reporting that the drug wasn't used much, even at abortion clinics, for that very reason. Goodman goes on to make a comment about the drugs Dr. Hager "uses and denies." That word, "denies," reveals her bias. Choosing not to use a therapy because of potential side effects is not "denying" a patient anything. It's using medical judgement to practice good medicine. Goodman's right. There's an ideological bias here, but the only proof I've seen of it is in the words of those opposed to Dr. Hager's appointment, not in those who nominated him. posted by Sydney on 10/21/2002 06:48:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
