The Thalidomide Affair

Monday, Jan. 22, 1973

Article Tools

"Children who were robbed of the magic of their childhood by a man-made disaster are now approaching the highly sensitive and emotional years of adolescence without arms, without legs and, in some cases, without organs."

So cried British Labor M.P. Jack Ashley last month during a House of Commons debate on a subject that has roused his countrymen as few issues have done in recent years: compensation for some 400 children who were born deformed after their mothers took the tranquilizer thalidomide between 1958 and 1961. Belatedly awakened to the financial as well as the physical plight of the children, Britons have responded with a torrent of outrage directed at the former distributor of the drug, giant Distillers Co. Ltd. More important, perhaps, the outcry appears to have forced a widespread public examination of the outdated laws and traditions that allowed what the Sunday Times called a "national shame" to go so long unnoticed and unredressed.

The law has generally favored the stronger of two unevenly matched sides. On the one hand were the parents of the children; besides the emotional burden they carry, some have had to pay for specialist treatment and equipment, such as electric wheelchairs and home elevators, not provided by Britain's national health. On the other side was Distillers, one of Britain's largest and most profitable businesses, with assets of nearly $1 billion. Distillers makes most of the world's top-selling brands of whisky and gin and owns a host of subsidiaries. At one time these included the pharmaceutical company—since sold—that marketed thalidomide under the name of Distaval until the drug was withdrawn from the market in 1961.

Ever since, Distillers has vigorously denied any legal responsibility. Since no proof of negligence has ever been established and since there was at the time no law in Britain holding a company responsible for the safety of its products, the law was on its side. Distillers, however, did tacitly admit some moral responsibility. The company offered to pay an average $36,000 per child on condition that the suits were withdrawn and the offer accepted as final. In 1969 Distillers proposed to settle on all parents of thalidomide children a lump sum of $7,000,000.

Far Short. Four parents refused, including David Mason, a wealthy London art dealer, who objected to plans to put the money into a charitable trust, which could mean that it would be distributed according to need. Mason held out for three long years in the face of legal harassment and pressures from other parents who blamed him for holding up the cash.

Last spring Distillers raised its offer by $ 1,000,000—on condition that all parents accept the amount as a final settlement (even though it fell far short of one actuarial estimate of the real damages, calculated at $240,000 per child).* In August, Distillers dropped the condition, but Mason and a handful of other parents still held out.