Document No.2
-
GlaxoSmithKline Fax of April 2001
Four years on and the story remains the same.
Here is
the text of a GlaxoSmithKline (the company created by the
merger of Glaxo with SmithKlineBeecham) Fax Message on this
issue which was written in April 2001 by their Public Affairs
Department.
This document also heralds that merger. Yet nobody has noticed
that they have a problem
6 April 2001, London
GLAXOSMITHKLINE - POSITION
RE. MYODIL
Myodil was an injectable dye used by doctors as a contrast
medium for x-ray purposes in myelography, a specialised
diagnostic procedure for examination of people suffering
with severe back problems. Myodil was supplied by Glaxo
Wellcome from the 1949s until 1987 when it was discontinued,
as newer, non-invasive techniques and products became available.
GlaxoSmithKline has every
sympathy for people who think they have suffered as a result
of the administration of Myodil. However, the symptoms and
issues surrounding arachnoiditis are complex, with current
medical opinion indicating that people's suffering is most
likely due to their original condition, degenerative back
disease or surgery and other medical procedures which were
undertaken. It should not be overlooked that by definition
people who had myelograms were already back-sufferers.
Glaxo Wellcome supplied
Myodil to meet the needs of a knowledgeable and specialist
medical profession who had to take in account side effects
before using the product on a case-by-case basis. All pharmaceutical
products have side-effects which have to be weighed up by
doctors against the benefits which the products bring, and
this judgement clearly has fto be based on medical knowledge
available at the time. As soon as Glaxo became aware of
the possibility of arachnoiditis in 1971, it included warnings
to that effect in the form of inserts in the product's packaging.
In July 1995, after 4 years
of legal proceedings over Myodil, Glaxo Wellcome reached
a settlement with a group of plaintiffs. This was done without
any admission of liability by the company, which took the
view that a settlement was more equitable and in the best
interests of the parties, not least in terms of the legal
costs which would have been incurred. Ther terms of the
settlement involved a lump sum payment of £7 million
and took into account 425 plaintiffs who had submitted their
full cases, including medical information.
In conclusion, the company
believes that it has acted responsibly at all times in relation
to the supply of Myodil.
Well at least they are consistent.
Top
Back
to Government and Business Papers
