Safe drugs

There was some comfort in last week's announcement that the Food and Drug Administration is beefing up its long-term monitoring of prescription drugs. At the same time, the announcement raised a question in many Americans' minds: Will the FDA be as forthcoming as it should be?

Following the alarming revelation last September that pain-killers such as Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra -- used mostly to treat the symptoms of arthritis -- Americans were made all too aware that their expectations that the government was keeping them safe might be unfounded.

The drugs in question, which brought in as much as $5 billion a year for pharmaceutical companies, were found to increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes in some -- not all -- users.

In announcing the formation of a special monitoring board to keep track of a drug's performance after it receives initial FDA approval, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said people want more oversight. Indeed, most Americans thought they were already getting it.

The FDA's apparently weak drug follow-up raised another question for millions of Americans who wonder why they are not officially permitted to purchase prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies: If the FDA hasn't been effectively monitoring the performance of U.S.-produced drugs sold in U.S. pharmacies, how can it be so sure about the safety warnings about U.S.-produced drugs sold by Canadian pharmacies?

Like the soft spots in U.S. intelligence that became apparent with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, recent revelations about how the government approves and monitors -- or fails to monitor -- the drugs so many Americans depend on show there are good reasons to be concerned.

Whether or not more bureaucracy is the best way to reassure Americans about the drugs they take remains to be seen. It will be up to drug users and their doctors to be more diligent about a part of government whose trust is paramount.