Public Health Problem
The 1960s “Thalidomide Scare” occurred due to the negligence of pharmaceutical companies, bent on seeking profit regardless of outstanding public health concerns and the limitation of drug regulation by international governments. Thalidomide continues to negatively affect fetuses as a teratogen in underdeveloped nations, like Brazil, where drug surveillance is inadequate (Vianna et el. 2011). Additional societal stigma regarding the demonized drug hinders its availability to be researched and used in beneficial therapies for diseases including leprosy (Naafs 2006).
In 1956, the German pharmaceutical company, Chemi Grunenthal, had ostensibly struck gold (Rehman et el. 2011). They had marketed the latest “blockbuster drug,” …show more content…
In other countries, especially in areas affected by a high incidence of leprosy, thalidomide poses a serious hazard to fetuses. Unsuspecting mothers may “borrow” the drug from friends with leprosy, endangering their fetus’s development (Schuler-Faccini et el. 2007). Regardless of thalidomide’s bleak past, there may be an even greater risk to the community if society rejects the drug entirely; its potential as a cancer and leprosy treatment cannot be overlooked. Social stigma cannot lead organizations to disregard the drug’s benefit as an ENL leprosy drug as the WHO did in 2003 for fear of another “thalidomide scare” (Naafs …show more content…
Frances Kesley, the FDA agent who was in charge of reviewing William S. Merrell, Inc.’s application to market thalidomide in the US, is regarded as a national hero whose reluctance to accept the company’s assurances of safety saved the country from experiencing the full force of the “thalidomide scare” that Europe faced during the 1960s (Daemmrich 2004). Suspicious that the drug had not been tested for teratogenicity Kesley demanded that rigorous testing be done on the drug (The New York Times, 2013). Merrell removed their application in 1962 after the “Thalidomide Scare” attained widespread media coverage for its effects overseas (Daemmrich 2004). Since then, most nations across the globe have strictly limited or banned thalidomide. In cases when the prescription of thalidomide is inevitable to treat cancer and leprosy, the Food and Drug Administration has put together an elaborate plan that doctors are supposed to enact when prescribing thalidomide to patients. Female patients are particularly required to use birth control and sign waivers before taking the drug (Perri et el.
The 1960s “Thalidomide Scare” occurred due to the negligence of pharmaceutical companies, bent on seeking profit regardless of outstanding public health concerns and the limitation of drug regulation by international governments. Thalidomide continues to negatively affect fetuses as a teratogen in underdeveloped nations, like Brazil, where drug surveillance is inadequate (Vianna et el. 2011). Additional societal stigma regarding the demonized drug hinders its availability to be researched and used in beneficial therapies for diseases including leprosy (Naafs 2006).
In 1956, the German pharmaceutical company, Chemi Grunenthal, had ostensibly struck gold (Rehman et el. 2011). They had marketed the latest “blockbuster drug,” …show more content…
In other countries, especially in areas affected by a high incidence of leprosy, thalidomide poses a serious hazard to fetuses. Unsuspecting mothers may “borrow” the drug from friends with leprosy, endangering their fetus’s development (Schuler-Faccini et el. 2007). Regardless of thalidomide’s bleak past, there may be an even greater risk to the community if society rejects the drug entirely; its potential as a cancer and leprosy treatment cannot be overlooked. Social stigma cannot lead organizations to disregard the drug’s benefit as an ENL leprosy drug as the WHO did in 2003 for fear of another “thalidomide scare” (Naafs …show more content…
Frances Kesley, the FDA agent who was in charge of reviewing William S. Merrell, Inc.’s application to market thalidomide in the US, is regarded as a national hero whose reluctance to accept the company’s assurances of safety saved the country from experiencing the full force of the “thalidomide scare” that Europe faced during the 1960s (Daemmrich 2004). Suspicious that the drug had not been tested for teratogenicity Kesley demanded that rigorous testing be done on the drug (The New York Times, 2013). Merrell removed their application in 1962 after the “Thalidomide Scare” attained widespread media coverage for its effects overseas (Daemmrich 2004). Since then, most nations across the globe have strictly limited or banned thalidomide. In cases when the prescription of thalidomide is inevitable to treat cancer and leprosy, the Food and Drug Administration has put together an elaborate plan that doctors are supposed to enact when prescribing thalidomide to patients. Female patients are particularly required to use birth control and sign waivers before taking the drug (Perri et el.