Doctors once considered Diethylstilbestrol to be something of a miracle drug which could all but end most pregnancy complications, but instead of a panacea, the drug created an entire generation of victims.<\/p>\n
The synthetic estrogen was created in 1938, and after a brief series of clinical trials, the Food and Drug Administration allowed doctors to prescribe it to pregnant women in 1947. At the time, many doctors believed that low estrogen levels caused most pregnancy complications, and even though that idea was somewhat debunked by the 1950s (and is entirely debunked today), doctors kept administering it in large quantities.<\/p>\n
About that same time, researchers began to question DES\u2019 safety, leading to a 1971 FDA declaration that the drug was inadapt\u00e9 aux femmes enceintes<\/a>. Mais les prescriptions se sont poursuivies pendant plusieurs ann\u00e9es encore, car l'agence n'a pas rappel\u00e9 le m\u00e9dicament.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In the 1940s and 1950s, many pregnant women went to general practitioners. These doctors probably had no idea that they were prescribing a powerful drug which was, at best, only marginally effective.<\/p>\n The FDA took adverse action against DES based on a 1971 study which linked Diethylstilbestrol with vaginal clear cell adenocarcinoma, an unusual and aggressive form of cancer du col de l'ut\u00e9rus<\/a> qui est difficile \u00e0 traiter et a un taux de mortalit\u00e9 \u00e9lev\u00e9. Les filles DES, ou les femmes qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 expos\u00e9es au m\u00e9dicament in utero, ont d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 cette maladie \u00e0 un rythme alarmant. Au fil des ans, le di\u00e9thylstilbestrol a \u00e9galement \u00e9t\u00e9 associ\u00e9 \u00e0 d'autres probl\u00e8mes de sant\u00e9 graves, notamment\u00a0:<\/p>\n Les fils DES ont des probl\u00e8mes similaires, car ils ont des cas plus \u00e9lev\u00e9s de cancer des testicules, d'infertilit\u00e9 et de faible taux de testost\u00e9rone.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Researchers now know that DES is an epigenetic drug that actually has the power to alter a person\u2019s genetic code. As a result, the physical abnormalities that affect DES daughters and sons may affect their children as well. Many researchers fear that these effects may continue indefinitely as they are passed down from parents to children.<\/p>\n The good news is that the side effects seem to have diminished somewhat, as DES granddaughters and grandsons are likely to have fertility issues but, so far, are not more prone to reproductive cancer. The bad news is that the psychological effects of DES exposure, such as d\u00e9pression s\u00e9v\u00e8re<\/a>, peut-\u00eatre m\u00eame pire.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Because the DES exposure occurred so many years ago, one would think that these cases would be difficult to prove. But two plaintiff-friendly legal rules make the process much easier.<\/p>\n One is the responsabilit\u00e9 li\u00e9e \u00e0 la part de march\u00e9<\/a> doctrine. This rule is now widely used in products liability cases but was actually conceived in a DES daughters case. In most of these cases, the victim\/plaintiff names several potential defendants but, through no fault of his or her own, the victim\/plaintiff cannot identify the actual tortfeasor (company which sold DES to the victim\/plaintiff\u2019s mother). If a substantial share of the possibly responsible companies are named in the lawsuit and the jury awards damages, each defendant is responsible for a share of damages based on its market share at the time the drug was sold.<\/p>\nDES Filles (et DES Fils)<\/h3>\n
\n
DES Petites-filles<\/h3>\n
R\u00e9clamations pour dommages<\/h3>\n