An analysis of an email letter about Dr. W. David Hager
Evening folks! I thought you might be interested in a bit of current email letter writing going 'round and some comments on it. It's political, ethical, and medical in nature.
It's about the appointment of a doctor (W. David Hager) to an FDA panel concerning birth control and why some people think this a bad idea.
=======================
When I searched on his name (Dr. W. David Hager), I found page after page repeating the same statements. They all seemed to be copies of each other.
So let's look at the things they all seem to mention:
1 – He's Christian . . . and he recommends patients pray.
Nothing inherently wrong with that. I know lots of Christians and they are, on the whole, normal everyday folks like you and me. It’s not a genetic abnormality you know. ;-)
2 – He’s being considered for a position on an FDA committee.
A position, not the chairmanship as some pieces would have us believe.
3 – He’s anti-birth control.
So are many people in this country. Also, this claim needs to be examined. See below.
Now let’s look at the specifics of the letter you sent me:
>Dr. Hager's views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream of setback for reproductive technology.
A common rhetorical tactic. “Everybody knows that . . . .” and “It’s commonly known that everybody . . . .” It’s a way to portray the other side as ignorant and wrong without having to actually support your own case.
How many people in this country oppose birth control? I don’t know. Do you? I know that both of us support them and many of our friends do, too.
Then again, both of us enjoy so-called “alternative rock”, as do many of our friends; should we then assume that most of “mainstream America” agrees with us, too? (Even though country music is a bigger seller in the US today and for several years now?)
People tend to see society through their own rosy-tinted glasses which would have them believe that most people, “normal” people, believe as they do. I have no idea how many people out there are opposed to birth control pills. Maybe we should leave off the “everyone knows” bit until we have some stats in?
Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.
Maybe he does so in an effort to convince them that abstinence in a better option. I doubt he yells at a girl “NO YOU DAMN WHORE! YOU CANNOT HAVE BIRTH CONTROL PILLS!!!!!!!!” which is what the letter would have you think.
“The New York Times reported that Hager said he prefers not to prescribe contraceptives to single women but will if they insist and reject his advice to abstain from sex.” (source)
Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager's practice. In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying.
So, recommending that some women pray about illness is bad? Does the book say that he does nothing else for them or that they should receive no other help besides praying? Does it say that these women should just suck it up and use only prayer to combat their PMS? I don’t know. And the letter does not say. My guess is that the it does not.
Among other things, there is nothing un-Christian about taking Midol or other drugs to help with cramps, pain, bloating, mood swings, etc. etc. etc. Maybe, just maybe, he mentions prayer on top of other things. “The Times quoted Hager as saying he was ‘not against medication. The fact that I'm a person of faith does not deter me from also being a person of science.’ ” (source)
A great example of taking things out of context would be my guess. However, I do not know for sure, not having read the book myself. Why not find out before we pass judgment about this aspect of his belief system?
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.
“ . . . appears to have endorsed . . . .”???? If this is a published work, what’s wrong with either saying “Yes, he has endorsed this view” or actually quoting the source and proving it? This seems fishy to me. Sounds like saying, “So-and-so appears to have something to hide.” after finding that someone doesn’t want to talk to me.
Also, perhaps he was talking about mifepristone, which, as far as I can discover, is, in fact, an abortifacient. (The letter itself says just that in it’s next sentence or two– see below.)
Hagar's mission is religiously motivated. He has an ardent interest in revoking approval for mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) as a safe and early form of medical abortion. Hagar recently assisted the Christian Medical Association in a "citizen's petition" which calls upon the FDA to revoke its approval of mifepristone in the name of women's health. Hager's desire to overturn mifepristone's approval on religious grounds rather than scientific merit would halt the development of mifepristone as a treatment for numerous medical conditions disproportionately affecting women, including breast cancer, uterine cancer, uterine fibroid tumors, psychotic depression, bipolar depression and Cushing's syndrome.
If a drug is restricted for one use, is it restricted for all uses? I don’t know. I don’t think so. But this seems to be the argument they are making.
Are there any scientific reasons presented to oppose mifepristone? Are there any side-effects some might consider unacceptable? Do you know? I don’t. And the letter certainly would not present them if, in fact, the CMA had mentioned some in its petition. The writer does allude to this idea when he or she says that the petition, “. . . calls upon the FDA to revoke its approval of mifepristone in the name of women's health.” (emphasis added)
The writer then contradicts him or herself in the next sentence quoting, “Hager's desire to overturn mifepristone's approval on religious grounds rather than scientific merit . . . .” Odd bit of writing, that. Unless you are specifically trying to confuse the issue.
I doubt that mifepristone used to prevent cancer, tumors, psychosis, etc. would be on someone’s hit list of things to stop at all costs.
Seems to me that “desire to overturn” is a loaded phrase. Good. This is exactly what the writer of the letter wanted. And it probably worked well. Nicely done by her or him. It is still, however, rhetoric.
Also, “The FDA has not said it will ask the newly reconstituted committee – memberless for two years - to discuss the abortion pill, so far maintaining that the pill needs no additional scrutiny.” (source)
Women rely on the FDA to ensure their access to safe and effective drugs for reproductive health care including products that prevent pregnancy.
This just in: World Ends Tomorrow – Women and Minorities Hardest Hit . . . or so the old joke goes. Everyone depends on the FDA for their oversight in medical areas. And do you think that the men out there don’t have wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, friends, etc. for whom they would like to see these things made available?
For some women, such as those with certain types of diabetes and those undergoing treatment for cancer, pregnancy can be a life-threatening condition. We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives or to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostage by antiabortion politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no less.
What it seems to come down to, to me, is: should there be a pro-life Christian voice on this panel? Are you willing to deny this segment of the population a say in this important area of our societal life? Even if he were rabidly anti-everything birth control, this does not seem to me to be a disqualifier. They have the right to be heard on these topics as much as supporters do.
Look, I am pro-birth control. I hope it stays legal. But I think it would be wrong to tell the large portion of Americans who have problems with it that they are allowed no voice in the codes we as a society set up to regulate its use.
Rachel Shnekendorf, MPH
PTC Administrator
New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene
Bureau of STD Control
125 Worth St., Box #73
New York, NY 10013
BTW – I called Ms. Shnekendorf at find it here. She was a very real, very nice lady who had no idea at all what I was talking about.
An attempt to give this bit of attack writing some credibility. Makes one question its overall veracity, no?
Overall, one needs be wary of attack pieces . . . from either side of the aisle.
John
--30--
