The Pride of North Buffalo... still

This story in today's Buffalo News is about my old parish school and the pastor who's served there since before I was born. I think this sort of community spirit is why my parents continued to drag us to Mass years after we realized they didn't really believe much, if any, of the Roman Catholic doctrine we heard there.

Dangerous precedent

I don't have much more to say about this story from the New York Times besides the fact that this situation is absurd: two doctors who have voiced reservations about a new drug developed for prostate cancer have received threats for their trouble. The drug, Provenge, is waiting to be approved by the FDA for use. (The FDA voted that it seemed "generally safe" but has asked for more information before it gives the go-ahead for use.) Two physicians who are not convinced that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks have received threats - one a death threat - after they voted against approval.

Now, I admit that I have not read the Provenge trials, and that I do not treat people with prostate cancer. That said, does the name Vioxx ring a bell? Remember, the fantastic painkiller which later turned out to increase the risk for heart attacks?

The bottom line is that drugs get approved all the time and are later found to be dangerous - there aren't enough people in the studies to catch all the possible adverse effects. The job of the FDA and the scientists who help it decide whether to approve drugs is to be cautious without unduly restricting. Threatening doctors who voice concerns about the efficacy and safety of a drug helps no one.

It's not as if someone woke up one morning and thought, "Gee, I'd really like to make life harder for people with advanced prostate cancer, so I'll vote against this drug."

Regardless of what ultimately happens with Provenge, it is NOT acceptable to threaten people who advocate for patient safety. Doing so sets a dangerous precedent - literally.