There can’t be many people of my generation, unless they take a particular delight in being oblivious, who don’t know what Thalidomide is, or more pertinently, what it did to 10,000 of our near or exact contemporaries in 46 countries. It caused them to be born without limbs. All of those who were born in the late 1950s or early 1960s with all their limbs intact are the ones who got away. Though we never do it, the reality is that we should be looking at our legs and arms and thinking, there but for the grace of God...
It follows that the women who had babies in those years know what Thalidomide is, too. Those of them who never took it, and those of them who took it with no consequences to their children, have probably served a lifetime of gratitude just as those 10,000 women who were not as lucky have served a lifetime of suffering along with the children they bore, maimed by the morning-sickness tablets they took.
For that is what Thalidomide was: a morning-sickness pill that worked as a sedative. And while it worked to soothe the stomachs and nerves of pregnant women, it also prevented the growth of the limbs on the foetuses they carried.
Thalidomide was prescribed widely in Malta in those years, but I have been unable to obtain statistics on how many Maltese women took it against prescription (no numbers were collected or kept in those days, it seems) or how many Maltese children were born without limbs in those years because their mothers were prescribed Thalidomide by their doctors. Again, there appear to be no numbers kept, but I find it hard to believe that no research has been conducted into this matter in Malta. I am vaguely aware of a few people a couple of years my senior who have missing or stunted limbs, but of course, you can’t exactly demand to know how that happened. Most of them would have spent the bulk of their lives at Dar il-Providenza, and would have been, I imagine, among its first residents when it opened in the early 1960s.
Thalidomide was one of the major scandals of the 20th century. The scandal pivoted on the fact that Thalidomide continued to be sold – and worse still, to be prescribed by doctors who must have known what was going on unless they were equally culpable for their ignorant negligence – for around four years. This despite those 10,000 babies being born without limbs, all of whom had mothers who had taken Thalidomide. The manufacturers, a German pharmaceuticals company working with UK Distillers, fought hard against any suggestion that the maimed foetuses were the result of Thalidomide poisoning in the womb. As late as 1972 and 1973, the producers sought and obtained injunctions against the London newspaper, The Sunday Times, for carrying investigative reports that linked Thalidomide consumption to foetal maiming. The result was a landmark ‘freedom of speech’ judgement by the European Court of Human Rights, still known as ‘The Sunday Times Thalidomide ruling’, which had widespread positive consequences for press reporting in general. It is this judgement which makes it illegal for any court, in any country that is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, to hold any journalist, publisher or broadcaster in contempt for discussing trial proceedings or expanding on the information while they are ongoing. In other words, those people and journalists who talk about not discussing matters because they are ‘sub judice’ are 40 years out of date.
This subject is suddenly topical again because a couple of days ago, and half a century after the damage was done, 100 Australians and New Zealanders won a class action lawsuit against Diageo PLC, which had bought out the original manufacturer. These 100 people, all aged around 50, have no limbs or missing limbs, the result of their mothers having taken Thalidomide during pregnancy. With two-thirds of their lives now over, this week they won a settlement of $81 million in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
“It has been difficult and challenging litigation but this settlement will now see a group of people receive compensation, a result that goes some distance to finally addressing a very grave historic wrong,” said Peter Gordon, a lawyer from Gordon Legal, which conducted the proceedings with Slater & Gordon. The fact remains, however, that they have never know what it means to have limbs, and all because of a morning-sickness pill that was not adequately tested, and which continued to be prescribed to their mothers even when a strong correlation between the pill and babies born without limbs had become to emerge and was impossible to ignore.
Perth resident Monica McGhie, 50, who has no limbs at all, told the international news agencies, “Life has been a daily struggle for 50 years. This settlement will not take that hardship away, but it means I can look to the future with more confidence, knowing I can afford the support and care I need.”
Lynette Rowe is perhaps the most prominent Thalidomide victim to receive a settlement, which ran into millions of dollars, from Diageo. That was last year. She was in court this week to support her fellow victims when the new settlement was announced.
Grünenthal, who originally made and distributed the pill, only apologised to thalidomide victims last year, after half a century, but said it had paid about €500 million as compensation by 2010. In the 1970s, Diageo paid about £28 million to British Thalidomide victims.
www.daphnecaruanagalizia.com