This kind of thinking is harmfully simplistic. When you rely on rules of thumb ("this sort of thing should go slowly") to make public health decisions, you are going to harm people.
In the US, we suffer from an insane degree of regulatory medical conservatism. No one else in the world takes as long to approve life-saving medications as the FDA, and this is not rational; it's a reflexive political reaction to the Thalidomide disaster that isn't grounded in sound reason or statistics.
Here is an extensively cited analysis demonstrating that the FDA's extreme standards kill vastly more people than they save.
As a quick aside, your source also advocates for free-market healthcare and rejects national healthcare legislation and Medicare under the guise of individual choice.
It has _also_ published such gems as "The Scientific Case against the Global Climate Treaty" and “New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us”.
In light of that, I'll take their advocacy with a grain of salt.
---
On topic, while I can't comment on the EMA specifically, during my (extremely) brief period working alongside a medical device manufacturer, fear of FDA was oftentimes the primary motivating factor in keeping them honest.
While that's entirely anecdotal, when there are _significant_ financial incentives on the table people's morals tend to get more than a little flexible. Pharmaceuticals represent an area with _significant_ financial incentives, and, while I do agree that the FDA takes more time than is strictly necessary, it's a little fallacious to say they "kill vastly more people than they save" through regulation.
In the US, we suffer from an insane degree of regulatory medical conservatism. No one else in the world takes as long to approve life-saving medications as the FDA, and this is not rational; it's a reflexive political reaction to the Thalidomide disaster that isn't grounded in sound reason or statistics.
Here is an extensively cited analysis demonstrating that the FDA's extreme standards kill vastly more people than they save.
http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php
This isn't an inevitable problem; medical regulatory bodies like the EMA are much closer to the optimal level of caution.