@arstechnica This sounds like it requires serious investigation. For example, might he have some stake in the company that produced it?
It really makes no sense that just one person can issue such decisions though, regardless. I could understand if there were very good reason (such as an emergency and something with bad side effects was the only option) but this doesn't seem to match that. It really feels like he has stock in the company or something. (If that's not illegal it should be!)