In a surprising twist of events tied to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finds itself in suit. It seems the epicenter of the issue involves a drug called Ivermectin, typically employed as a horse dewormer but repurposed in the throes of the health crisis by some medical professionals as a potential treatment for the virus. When the FDA advised caution through social media posts against the usage of Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, controversy erupted that is drawing the agency into court.
The complainants are a group of doctors who allegedly prescribed the human version of Ivermectin to thousands of their COVID-19 patients. These physicians made assertions to the court that the FDA’s social media advisories against the drug negatively interfered with their ability to exercise professional medical judgment. They also contend that the advisories have caused reputational harm and resultant professional consequences. Finally, they claimed that the social media posts are beyond the FDA’s legal authority, as per a report by the ABA Journal.
It warrants mention that amidst the cacophony of COVID-19-related discourse on social platforms, the FDA has been far from the only one issuing medical advice. There have been various theories swirling around, attributing the causality of COVID-19 to factors as far-fetched as 5G wireless, divine retribution and even a hoax perpetuated by opposition political figures.
One cannot help but wonder about the implications of this lawsuit on the scope of what the government can publicly relay, particularly in times of crisis. The ongoing case certainly holds the potential to dictate a more unequivocal definition of the limit of governmental agency’s outreach. The outcome may have particularly interesting implications for other government branches, such as the Supreme Court, which has been previously accused of interfering with the professional judgement of doctors in a more substantial way through certain rulings such as the overturning of Roe.
In the meantime, the clarity of the lawsuit’s direction and its potential implications on government’s free speech awaits further elucidation. More on this case and its implications can be read in the ABA Journal.