Thalidomide apology is 50 years too late, say campaigners

[Guest guest]

An excellent comment I read on this:>>It has only taken the UK government fifty years to finally acknowledgetheir part in promoting the drug thalidomide to pregnant women, whilstknowing the drug had not been sufficiently tested. Many UK pregnantwomen took this drug believing it would alleviate morning sickness. Thedrug was prescribed to pregnant women during the 1950's and 60's andonly withdrawn in 1961 after thousands of babies had been born withmissing, deformed limbs or other severe health problems.It has taken fifty long hard years for campaigners to finally force thecurrent government to acknowledge central government's accountabilityand for central government to finally agree compensation. Yet againwomen's bodies were treated as 'guinea pigs' because big pharma was/isprimarily concerned with profit, and central government was notinterested in ensuring pregnant women only receive drugs which haveproven to be safe and effective. How long before other so-called 'safedrugs' administered to women are discovered to be not the 'wonder drug'as big pharma commonly claims. <<==========http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6988590.eceJanuary 15, 2010Thalidomide apology is 50 years too late, say campaignersDavid Rose, Health CorrespondentVictims of the thalidomide scandal have been given a formal apology by the Government more than 50 years after the drug was first used in Britain. It comes just after a decision to award more than £20 million in compensation.Ministers expressed “sincere regret and deep sympathy” to people born with disabilities after their mothers took the drug during pregnancy.Campaigners have fought a long and at times bitter battle for formal recognition that the British Government should have done more to stop, or minimise, the impact of the drug. Thalidomide was prescribed to pregnant women in the 1950s and 1960s as a treatment for morning sickness or insomnia. It was withdrawn in 1961 as thousands of babies were born with missing or deformed limbs and other health problems.Mike O’Brien, the Health Minister, publicly apologised yesterday to at least 466 thalidomiders — as surviving victims are known — who are supported by the charity the Thalidomide Trust. He also confirmed a £20 million support package, announced last month, which will be administered through the trust. Speaking at the House of Commons yesterday, he said: “We acknowledge both the physical hardship and the emotional difficulties that have faced both the children affected and their families as a result of this drug and the challenges that many continue to endure, often on a daily basis.”The drug’s UK manufacturer, Distillers Biochemicals, paid £28 million compensation in the 1970s after a legal battle by the families of those affected. This was increased by successor companies, although the average paid to survivors in Britain remains below £20,000 a year.The Government’s most recent £20 million compensation package will add to this. It is to be shared out over the next three years and reflects the fact that many survivors are unable to work, but are living longer than expected.Until last year it was not clear how thalidomide caused birth defects but scientists now believe it affects the growth of new blood vessels in the embryo. Britain was the second biggest user of the drug after Germany, where it was developed. About 2,000 babies born in Britain had problems, with half dying within months. There were another 5,000 elsewhere in the world. Campaigners also estimate that thalidomide caused the deaths of up to 100,000 babies in the womb.Guy Tweedy, of the Thalidomide Trust, said: “I’m highly delighted and so glad that it actually came, 50 years too late but never mind. It’s an apology not just to thalidomide victims but to the parents who lost their children in the early days. The apology means as much in some ways as the money.”A review of the regulating of drugs was initiated after the scandal, in which one of the most famous British newspaper investigations, by The Sunday Times, played a full part in revealing details. The drug is now used to treat cancers of the blood but should never be prescribed to pregnant women. All other patients are advised to use contraception. =====In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.