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 hamile kad\u0131nlar i\u00e7in uygun de\u011fil<\/a>. Ancak ajans ilac\u0131 geri \u00e7a\u011f\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in re\u00e7eteler birka\u00e7 y\u0131l daha devam etti.<\/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 Rahim a\u011fz\u0131 kanseri<\/a> tedavisi zor ve \u00f6l\u00fcm oran\u0131 y\u00fcksek olan bir hastal\u0131kt\u0131r. DES k\u0131zlar\u0131 veya ilaca anne karn\u0131nda maruz kalan kad\u0131nlar, bu hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fcrk\u00fct\u00fcc\u00fc derecede y\u00fcksek bir oranda geli\u015ftirdiler. Y\u0131llar boyunca, Dietilstilbestrol a\u015fa\u011f\u0131dakiler de dahil olmak \u00fczere di\u011fer ciddi sa\u011fl\u0131k sorunlar\u0131yla da ili\u015fkilendirilmi\u015ftir:<\/p>\n DES o\u011fullar\u0131, daha y\u00fcksek testis kanseri, k\u0131s\u0131rl\u0131k ve d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck testosteron vakalar\u0131na sahip olduklar\u0131 i\u00e7in benzer sorunlara sahiptir.<\/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 a\u011f\u0131r depresyon<\/a>, daha da k\u00f6t\u00fc olabilir.<\/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 pazar pay\u0131 y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc<\/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 K\u0131zlar\u0131 (ve DES O\u011fullar\u0131)<\/h3>\n
\n
DES Torunlar\u0131<\/h3>\n
Tazminat Talepleri<\/h3>\n