Primodos: Somerset woman says people ‘will keep fighting’

A woman born with a heart murmur and deformities in her feet has spoken out after a legal case against a drug manufacturer was thrown out by a court.

Bethan Dickson believes her health problems were caused by Primodos, which her mother took while she was pregnant.

The oral pregnancy test was taken by more than one million women in the UK in the 1960s and 70s.

Speaking on behalf of the campaign group she is part of, Ms Dickson, from Wells, said: “We will keep fighting.”

She said The Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests (ACDHPT) has been “trying for decades to get justice for people, some of whom can’t speak for themselves”.

The group, which was formed when the drug was withdrawn from market, was seeking legal action against three drug companies – Bayer Pharma, Schering Health Care, Aventis Pharma – as well as the UK government in a bid for compensation.

However, the judge threw out the claims involving more than 170 people, after the firms said there was no evidence of a “causal association” between the drug and the harm suffered by the claimants.

The test, which consisted of two pills that contained synthetic hormones, was used as a faster alternative to urine sample tests.

It was prescribed to more than one million women before it was withdrawn in 1978, over concerns it may have led to birth defects in newborns as well as some miscarriages and stillbirths.

When Ms Dickson was born in the 1960s, she suffered with respiratory issues, and when she was three months old, doctors discovered she had a systolic heart murmur.

She also suffers from deformities in her feet, which left her feeling “quite isolated” as a child.

“I can never remember a point in my life where I haven’t had pain in my feet,” she said.

Her mother was prescribed Primodos in the 1960s to determine whether or not she was pregnant.

At the time, Ms Dickson said people seemed accepting of a doctor’s authority and there was “less willingness to challenge”.

It wasn’t until the late 1970s that a family friend approached Bethan’s parents and suggested her health problems could be linked to the drug.

Ms Dickson said that some parents had expressed guilt, adding “no mother wants to cause their child pain”.

When the judge discontinued the case, she said she felt “really hurt” and “very disappointed”.

“It’s very difficult to speak out about something like this… speaking out is tough and it feels really exposing, and I’m only doing it because there are so many of our members that can’t do it themselves,” she said.

In a statement released after the case was dismissed, Bayer again denied Primodos was responsible for causing any congenital anomalies in children, miscarriages or stillbirth.

Previous UK litigation against the manufacturer ended in 1982 after the claimants’ legal team decided to discontinue the legal action on grounds that there was “no realistic possibility of showing the drug caused the congenital anomalies alleged.”

The statement continued: “Bayer maintains no new significant scientific knowledge has been produced which would call into question the validity of the previous assessment of there being no link between the drug and the congenital anomalies.”

A spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care said: “We note the court’s decision in this case.

“We cannot comment on other ongoing legal proceedings.”