Hundreds of victims of 'silent scandal' pregnancy drug call for public inquiry
DES was prescribed from 1940 to the 1970s to prevent miscarriage, premature labour and pregnancy complications
Hundreds of victims of a "silent scandal" involving a pregnancy drug linked to cancer are calling on the Government to launch a public inquiry.
More than 300 people have formed the group DES Justice UK (DJUK) for those affected by diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic form of the female hormone oestrogen, commonly known as DES.
DES was prescribed to pregnant women from 1940 to the 1970s to prevent miscarriage, premature labour and complications of pregnancy.
It was also used to suppress breast milk production, for emergency contraception and to treat menopausal symptoms in women.
In 1971, researchers linked DES exposure to a type of cancer of the cervix and vagina called clear cell adenocarcinoma, prompting US regulators to say the drug should not be prescribed to pregnant women.
However, DES, which is also linked to other cancers such as breast, pancreatic and cervical, continued to be prescribed to pregnant women in Europe until 1978.
The new UK group is made up of women who took the drug, but also their daughters, sons and granddaughters who have suffered medical issues such as infertility, reproductive abnormalities and increased risk of cancer.
Around 300,000 women in the UK are estimated to have been prescribed the drug.
READ MORE: 'Significant' disruption on key route for 'days' after Glasgow to London train derailment
Compensation schemes have been set up for DES victims in the US and Netherlands , but the UK does not have one.
Issy Taylor, 25, from Worcester , says her mother suffered fertility issues after her own mother took the drug.
Ms Taylor, a spokesperson for DES Justice UK, herself has experienced abnormal cervical cell changes.
She said: "The impact of this drug, not only on my family but countless others, has been devastating, both emotionally and physically.
"For the victims, there has been a breakdown of trust towards the Government and medical institutions who have lied to us and treated with contempt.
"My mum was lied to by professionals who assured her there was no possibility the drug could affect me, even though they had no research to support that claim.
"For 24 years I believed I wasn't affected until recently, when I learned that wasn't true.
"What frustrates me most is that the drug companies and institutions responsible for this devastation profited and covered it up while families like mine have paid the ultimate price - with our health, fertility, and peace of mind.
"We were used as human guinea pigs for profit, and decades later, we're still being denied the proper healthcare, compensation, recognition, and justice we deserve which is why we have launched this campaign."
Her mother Michelle, 63, said women who were given DES were "like lambs to the slaughter" and their maternal instincts were "exploited".
Mrs Taylor's mother Sylvia Bennett was prescribed the drug during two of her pregnancies.
She had previously had two miscarriages, as well as a full-term stillbirth.
DES was linked to a rare vaginal cancer called clear-cell adenocarcinoma in the 1970s, which Mrs Taylor was monitored for for decades.
But the teacher and artist from Worcester said she was never told that the drug could damage the reproductive system.
She is also concerned that the affects of DES have been passed to her daughter, as well as her two nieces.
At 23, a newly married Mrs Taylor had a near-fatal ectopic pregnancy, followed by another four months later.
Between the ages of 23 and 37, Mrs Taylor and her husband went through six rounds of IVF, which at the time was in its infancy. They finally had Issy.
It was not until 1997, when the sisters were part of a group called DES Action UK, that literature on DES stated to emerge from the US.
Clare Fletcher, partner at the Broudie Jackson Canter solicitors, which represents the group, said: "This is the silent scandal, with victims suffering in pain for decades with limited medical support and no Government recognition for what they have been through.
"It is one of the most devastating pharmaceutical failures in UK history and the people whose lives have been marred by it deserve answers.
"It is time that the Government took some responsibility for the mistakes of the past and set up a statutory public inquiry to look into how this was allowed to happen and why it has been covered up since.
"It is a national disgrace that victims have been ignored, disbelieved and humiliated when all they wanted was fair treatment. It is crucial that these sufferers are finally given the truth and afforded access to the compensation they deserve."
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said correspondence was sent by the Committee on Medicines Safety (CSM) in 1973 to inform UK doctors of a US study into instances of vaginal adenocarcinoma.
This advised that no similar cases had been found in the UK, and the letter did not explicitly contraindicate the use of DES in pregnancy and pre-menopausal women.
A spokesman said: "We apologise for this error and for any distress caused to patients and the public.
"At the time of the communication in 1973, usage in pregnancy in the UK was considered to be much lower than in the US which, coupled with the lack of UK cases of affected children, led to the conclusion that communicating to doctors on the available evidence was sufficient.
"This position was supported by the September 1972 CSM minutes, which show the Committee agreed that no action was necessary beyond continued surveillance, as there was no evidence the US findings applied in the UK."
Later, in 1981/82, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry datasheets said DES was specifically contraindicated in pregnancy or for women who might become pregnant.
The MHRA said its sympathies lay with those affected by DES, adding: "The committee's work predates the existence of the MHRA, when medicines vigilance was only in its infancy and there were no electronic records or systematic monitoring of prescriptions.
"There has been a step change in reporting and record keeping since this time and today's regulatory frameworks are significantly different."
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.