Anti-Abortion Doctor Re-appointed to FDA Panel

W. David Hager, a Kentucky obstetrician and evangelical Christian who has been an outspoken opponent of abortion, stem-cell research, and so many other modern advances in reproductive medicine will re reappointed to the Food and Drug Administration's advisory panel on reproductive drugs. Naturally, there have been a lot of complaints about this.

The Washington Post reports:

In a letter to President Bush, a bipartisan group of representatives who support abortion rights said Hager should not be reappointed to the FDA's reproductive health advisory committee because he has "allowed his personal views to overshadow his duty to both the FDA and the American people." Hager, an advocate of some forms of religious healing and a former spokesman for a group that petitioned the FDA to rescind its approval of the abortion pill RU-486, was appointed in 2002 over similar protests. ... While he has written numerous articles for mainstream medical journals and some textbook chapters on reproductive issues, he has also authored several books that mix his medical and religious views.

"I would hope that he is reappointed because he is a man of science and a man of faith, and that's an important combination to have on one of these committees. Being an atheist or an agnostic shouldn't be a requirement to serve," [David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical Association] said.

I would agree that being an atheist or an agnostic shouldn’t be a requirement to serve — but Stevens is advocating something very similar when he says that he hopes Hager’s reappointment is due to him being a “man of faith.” What does Stevens mean by that except that Hager is a theist and is religious? In essence, Stevens is suggesting that not being an atheist or an agnostic should be a requirement to serve.

People’s problem with Hager is not that he is religious or that he is a theist. People’s problem with him is that they think he mixes his personal religious beliefs with scientific conclusions too much. They feel that he allows personal religious beliefs to interfere with what should be purely scientific conclusions. If that is the case, then he indeed shouldn’t be reappointed. The Bush administration has a strong history of messing with science for the sake of political or religious ends and this looks very much like just another example of that.

Read More:

• Religious Right
• What is Science?