Trial Magazine

In the late 1800s, women were frequently given morphine for “hysteria” and methamphetamines for depression. In the early 20th century, women were encouraged to use Lysol as a douche and unofficial contraceptive aid. The postwar generation witnessed the thalidomide and DES (synthetic estrogen) disasters, and women of the 1950s and 1960s were frequently prescribed tranquilizers and barbiturates so powerful that they were not intended for regular use by humans. The 1970s and 1980s brought IUDs to the market that led to severe injuries and infections, and tampons that caused toxic shock syndrome.

Drug and medical device manufacturers have often targeted women, promising help for ­everything from anxiety to miscarriage, due to archaic notions that women were physiologically inferior to men—and that they were “burdened” by their reproductive systems. What’s more, women are at an increased risk from the potential dangers of drugs and medical devices—they take more medications than men, respond to them differently, and are more likely to suffer adverse drug events.

To bring some of these issues to light, AAJ recently released a report, From Accutane to Zonite: A History of Dangerous Drugs & Devices Marketed to Women, that highlights the drugs and devices that have disproportionately harmed women over the last century.

In the 21st century, women face blood-clotting ­third-generation birth control hormones and selective ­serotonin-reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs—heir to the sedatives of the previous century. Recent lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson have highlighted that even the most innocuous of products, such as talc powder, can have serious medical consequences—and that despite knowing these risks, many drug and device manufacturers continue to aggressively market their products to women.

Despite the number of drugs and devices on the market specifically targeted to females, women were not required to be included in human subject research until 1993. Even now, women are still often underrepresented or excluded from medical studies. For example, women metabolize drugs differently, but the FDA does not require trials to compare dose efficacy between men and women. Drug and device manufacturers have also learned to hide behind regulations and previous FDA approval to claim immunity from accountability.

The AAJ report highlights products that were, in most cases, approved by regulators and marketed to women despite manufacturer knowledge of serious and sometimes fatal health risks. In almost every case, women were put at risk for years while corporations squeezed every last drop of profit from their dangerous products.

To read the report, visit www.justice.org/womenshealth.

David Ratcliff is a researcher for AAJ Public Affairs. He can be reached at david.ratcliff@justice.org.