WEEKEND. WE’LL TALK ABOUT THAT RAIN HEADED IN AND HOW IT COULD AFFECT YOUR PLANS IN THE
FORECAST IN JUST A FEW MINUTES.
SOUNDS GOOD, KIM. WE’LL SEE YOU
THEN. ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK
GARLAND SAYS HE’S TAKING THE
BATTLE OVER THE ABORTION PILL
PRESS TONE TO THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT YESTERDAY, A
FEDERAL APPEALS COURT NARODA
RULING BY A JUDGE IN TEXAS WHO’S
RULING WOULD TOTALLY REVERSED
THE FDA APPROVAL OF THE DRUG.
THE APPEALS COURT SAYS THE DRUG
SHOULD BE AVAILABLE BUT NARROWED
THE WINDOW OF TIME THAT WOMEN
CAN USE IT AND WON’T ALLOW IT TO
BE DISPENSED THROUGH THE MAIL.
THE RESTRICTIONS ARE IN PLACE
UNTIL THE APPEALS COURT IS ABLE
TO FULLY CONSIDER THIS CASE. BUT
THERE’S ANOTHER RULING OUT OF
WASHINGTON STATE THAT SAYS THE
DRUG SHOULD BE FULLY AVAILABLE
IN THE 17TH DEMOCRAT LEADING
STATES THAT SUED TO KEEP IT ON
THE MARKET. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SAYS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
PLANS TO SEEK EMERGENCY RELIEF
FROM THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS
CASE, AND THE BATTLE OVER
ABORTION IS BEING FOUGHT ON SO
MANY FRONTS IN THE COURTS IN
STATE LEGISLATURES. AND REALLY
IN MANY OF OUR OWN FAMILIES, AND
THIS FIGHT OVER THE ABORTION
PILL ALSO SPILLS INTO THE
MEDICAL AND ETHICAL
CONSIDERATIONS. TUTMAN HAS BEEN
GATHERING MORE VIEWPOINTS FOR
ALL OF US TO CONSIDER PAULA
YEAH. HI, KRISTIE. HI, EVERYBODY
. YEAH OF COURSE. WE’VE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT THE POLITICS OF
MEDFORD PRESS STONE. BUT AS YOU
SAID, THERE’S ALSO A MEDICAL
ETHICS POINT OF VIEW AND WHETHER
OR NOT POLITICIZING MEDICAL
SCIENCE, ACTUALLY WELL, SERVES
THE PUBLIC. TO MEDICAL ETHICIST
WEARING TWO DIFFERENT GOGGLES.
DR MARTIN LIEBER TEACHES ETHICAL
THEORY AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
AT U. D MERCY BUT ALSO SITS AS
AN ADVISOR TO THE CATHOLIC
ARCHDIOCESE OF DETROIT. IT’S
WELL KNOWN THAT THAT THE THAT
THAT THE CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE IS
PRO LIFE, WHICH MEANS ANY
INTERVENTION THAT IS INTENDED TO
BRING ABOUT THE DEATH OF A HUMAN
BEING IN YOU KNOW, STARTING FROM
CONCEPTION THROUGH NATURAL
DEATH. IS WRONG. DR JASON
WASSERMAN IS A MEDICAL ETHICIST
AND PROFESSOR OF FOUNDATIONAL
MEDICINE STUDIES AT OAKLAND
UNIVERSITY, WILLIAM BEAUMONT
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE. WE CAN HAVE
REASONABLE DISAGREEMENT ABOUT
THE ETHICS AND MORALITY OF
ABORTION. BUT THESE PLAINTIFFS
WERE DOING SOMETHING PRETTY
SNEAKY AND THAT THEY WERE TRYING
TO IMPEACH UNION SCIENCE IN WAYS
THAT WEREN’T EVIDENCE BASED, AND
THEY FOUND A JUDGE. I THINK
WHOSE IDEOLOGICAL POSITION ON
ABORTION WAS SYMPATHETIC TO
THEIRS. FROM HIS GOGGLES. DOCTOR
WASSERMAN SEES GREAT DANGER AND
WHAT COULD BE REFERRED TO AS
MEDICAL GERRYMANDERING. WHAT WE
WANT OUT OF SCIENCE IS TO BE AS
VALUE NEUTRAL AS POSSIBLE, AND,
UM, IT’S IMPORTANT THAT
SCIENTISTS BE ABLE TO
OBJECTIVELY EVALUATE THE DATA
FROM THE GOGGLES OF AN ADVISOR
TO THE ARCHDIOCESE, WHILE THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH COMES FROM A PRO
LIFE ANTI ABORTION STANCE, EVEN
DR LIEBER HAS CONCERNS WHEN
POLITICS INTERSECT WITH PROVEN
SCIENCE AND MEDICINE. WELL IT’S
CERTAINLY SENSE OF DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT. YOU KNOW, WE YOU
KNOW, WE COUNT ON THE MEDICAL
EXPERTS TO GIVE US MEDICAL FACTS
IF WE ALLOW VALUE JUDGMENTS TO
INTERFERE WITH JUST THE
ACCEPTANCE OF WHAT IS FACTUALLY
THE CASE. WE CAN’T EVEN HAVE A
GOOD ETHICAL CONVERSATION. BOTH
DOCTORS FEAR THAT THE SLIPPERY
SLOPE IS THAT ALLOWING A JUDGE
TO RULE ON PROVEN MEDICINE,
SCIENCE AND PHARMACOLOGY COULD
BE A THREAT TO MEDICAL CARE IN
OTHER WAYS. PERHAPS BIRTH
CONTROL PILLS WILL BE NEXT,
WHICH ALSO TREAT OTHER MALADIES
OR HORMONE THERAPIES FOR
TRANSGENDER PEOPLE THAT HAVE
OTHER MEDICAL BENEFITS FOR OTHER
CONDITIONS. THE PRIMARY WORRY
THAT WE SHOULD HAVE ABOUT
PHARMACEUTICAL DEVELOPMENT.
GOING FORWARD FROM THIS RULING
IS THAT COMPANIES LOOKING AT
THIS RULING MAY SHY AWAY FROM
THE DEVELOPMENT OF DRUGS THAT
THEY THINK ARE IDEOLOGICALLY
CONTROVERSIAL. THE COURTS DON’T
HAVE ANY BUSINESS. YOU KNOW,
TRYING TO REDEFINE WHAT IS OR IS
NOT A MEDICAL FACT. LOTS OF
OPINIONS ON THIS. THESE ARE JUST
TWO OPINIONS. THESE TWO
PARTICULAR ETHICIST, HOWEVER, DO
BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE
HEALTHY DIALOGUE ON THE ETHICS
OF CERTAIN DRUGS, EVEN
DISAGREEMENT. THEY ABSOLUTELY
AGREE. THERE CAN BE DISAGREEMENT
, BUT THEY DON’T BELIEVE THAT
THE AGENDA DRIVEN JUDICIAL
RULINGS ARE HELPFUL. ONCE
SCIENCE HAS BEEN PROVEN.