Ohio Decision Against DES Daughters
from drug companies who produced DES
by Pat Cody
This article by DES Action president Pat Cody describes how the research done into the effects of DES (Note: It has been known since 1971 that DES (diethylstilbestrol), a synthetic hormone drug, causes cancer in women exposed in-utero.) has served as a model for study of exposure to pollutants around the world that have estrogenic effects.
DES daughters (Note: It has been known since 1971 that DES (diethylstilbestrol), a synthetic hormone drug, causes cancer in women exposed in-utero.) in Ohio cannot sue the drug companies for compensation unless they name the specific maker of the DES their mothers took, according to a ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court on June 30. In a narrow 4 - 3 decision, Justice Deborah Cook wrote that "We recognize that the DES plaintiff who, without fault, is unable to identify the manufacturer responsible for her injury... engenders sympathy. It is, however, the role of the court to interpret the law, not to legislate."
The three justices who voted to use the market-share liability principle in DES cases, as is done in a number of states and allows a suit without naming an exact manufacturer, wrote a strong dissent. Justice Andy Douglas stated that "The majority, by today's decision, rings the death knell for most of the DES litigation in Ohio. This prescription by the majority is the functional equivalent of saying: 'Take two aspirin and do not call us in the morning.'"
A second dissenting Justice, Paul Pfeifer, added that "...the majority is more comfortable shielding the defendant drug companies than with applying a theory of discovery that would allow the plaintiffs to go forward with their case. DES-injured women will have to content themselves with knowing that they 'engender sympathy.'"
Attorney Marie Wheeler, who represented DES daughter June Sutowski, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper that her firm represents 230 daughters with similar cases. She said that "This decision cuts off the rights of women who, before they were even born, were damaged. ...This is nothing but another way for pharmacy companies to excuse their own negligent behavior."
Shielding the defendant drug companies ..."
|Published in In Motion Magazine August 1, 1998.
If you have any thoughts on this or would like to contribute to an ongoing discussion in the
What is New? || Affirmative Action || Art Changes || Autonomy: Chiapas - California ||
Community Images || Education Rights || E-mail, Opinions and Discussion ||
En español || Essays from Ireland || Global Eyes || Healthcare ||
Human Rights/Civil Rights || Piri Thomas ||
Photo of the Week || QA: Interviews || Region || Rural America ||
Search || Donate || To be notified of new articles || Survey ||
In Motion Magazine's Store || In Motion Magazine Staff ||
In Unity Book of Photos ||
Links Around The World
Copyright © 1995-2017 NPC Productions as a compilation. All Rights Reserved.