Appeals Court reinstates Nigerian research case against Pfizer

Appeals Court reinstates Nigerian research case against Pfizer

Tue, 14 Oct 2003

On Oct. 8, 2003, The US Court of Appeals for the Second District (NY) vacated and remanded the lower District Court decision (Sept. 26, 2002) that had dismissed a lawsuit brought on behalf of Nigerian children and guardians against Pfizer. The plaintiffs in the case charge the pharmaceutical company with conducting medical experiments in Nigeria on babies and children without parental informed consent.

“The central events at issue in this lawsuit occurred in 1996, not long after epidemics of bacterial meningitis, measles and cholera broke out in Kano, Nigeria. Pfizer established a treatment center at the Infectious Disease Hospital in Kano to treat victims of the meningitis epidemic. Plaintiffs allege that Pfizer, instead of using safe and effective bacterial meningitis treatments, used the epidemic as an opportunity to conduct biomedical research experiments on Nigerian children involving Pfizer’s “new, untested and unproven” antibiotic, trovaflozacin mesylate, better known by its brand name, TrovanĀ®.”

Plaintiffs charge Pfizer with violating the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, FDA regulations and other norms of international law.

“Plaintiffs claim that Pfizer failed to explain to the children’s parents that the proposed treatment was experimental, that they could refuse it, or that other organizations offered more conventional treatments at the same site free of charge. Id. at *2. In addition, plaintiffs assert that half of the children who participated in Pfizer’s treatment program were deliberately given inadequate doses of ceftriaxone–an FDA-approved drug shown to be effective in treating meningitis–so that Trovan would look more effective by comparison. Id. According to plaintiffs, five of the children who received Trovan and six of the children who were “low-dosed” with ceftriaxone died and others treated by Pfizer suffered very serious injuries, including paralysis, deafness and blindness. Id.”

At issue was whether Plaintiffs could obtain justice in a Nigerian Court–which they documented, they could not.

The case, Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 02-9223 (2d Cir. 10/08/2003) Nos. 02-9223 (L), 02-9303 (XAP) October 8, 2003 See: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/research/Abdullahi_v_Pfizer.htm

The case may signal to pharmaceutical companies that human beings even in countries ruled by corrupt oppressive regimes, are entitled to human rights protection afforded by international ethical research guidelines.

Similar Posts

  • FDA: Regulatory Protections for Children

    Comments submitted by Vera Hassner Sharav, John H. Noble, Jr., Ph.D and Howard Fishman, MEd, MSW for AHRP

    To: Dr. Bernard Schwetz Acting Commissioner Food and Drug Administration, Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration

    Re: COMMENT ON: Docket #00N-0074 April 24, 2001 Interim Rule: "Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations of FDA-Regulated Products

    Excerpt: The FDA rightly chose not to permit the section 46.408 (c) waiver by IRBs of parental or guardian permission, as it leaves the specific circumstances for such a violation of parental rights to the discretion of local Institutional Review Boards (IRB). Given the stream of revelations of gross ethical and procedural violations at one after another of the nation’s premier research institutions, assumptions that “procedural safeguards are in place,” or that IRBs can be relied upon to make decisions that protect the best interests of human subjects – adults and children – has been debunked.

  • Seven Independent Investigations give FDA a Failing Grade

    FDA’s preeminent authority to determine whether a drug or device is approved is its assumed scientific expertise and honest, independent review of safety and performance data from scientifically valid, controlled clinical trials.  However, surveys of FDA scientists and numerous independent investigations by highly credible entities have all confirmed serious deficiencies…

  • OHRP Compliance Letters

    ETHICAL AND POLICY ISSUES IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN PARTICIPANTS National Bioethics Advisory Commitee (NBAC) Final Report, 2001 Exhibit 3.1: Office of Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) Compliance Oversight Investigations Resulting in Restrictions/Actions to Institutions that have Multiple Project Assurances (MPA) between January 1990 – June 2000 Year, Institution and Action…

  • InfoMail for April 16, 2002

      AHRP InfoMail Return to Home Page Return to InfoMail Media Coverage List MediaCoverage News Stories on Human ResearchProtection andCommentary by Vera Hassner Sharav April 16, 2002 Do Risk Factors NecessarilyLead to Disease? FYI Dr. Peter Gotzsche, who touched off a firestorm when hechallenged the assumption that early detection of a…