Global

Breaking the Shield

Weak or non-existent laws prevent many harmed by bad products from claiming compensation. If the product is made outside the country, any attempt for redress is fraught with so many legal hurdles that few would even think of trying. This is a story of the hundreds of thousands of women who are trying, encouraged by the practical international solidarity that are grown amongst them.

For Hari John from Madras, India, it had been a long journey as she finally landed at the John F Kennedy Airport in New York. She had come to the US for one purpose — to file claims against A H Robins, the American company that manufactured and sold by the millions the intra-uterine device, the Dalkon Shield. Years ago she was fitted with this IUD. She now believes that it has made her unable to conceive.

Some 325,000 women like Mrs John who had suffered damage from the Dalkon Shield have filed claims in the US courts. This is more than six times the number anticipated. Unlike Mrs John, most of the women who live outside the US were unable to personally file their claims. Most, too, had not even known that the manufacturer took the Shield off the US market in 1974 after proven links to pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility, but continued to sell overseas. Altogether some 2.8 million units were sold in the US and another 1.75 million in 55 other countries.

The unprecedented number of women, especially from outside the US, who finally filed claims was the result of the work of many different groups in various countries. These groups publicised the fact that claims for damages caused by the Shield could be made and that they should be lodged before the April 30th 1986 deadline. Their offer to assist with the procedures and papers encouraged many women to come forward.

In Bangladesh, UBINIG (Policy Research for Development Alternatives) had an enormous response from Dalkon Shield users. But it was hard work. Farida Akhter of the organisation reported, 'We visited family planning clinics, pulled out names and addresses of women who had been fitted with the Dalkon Shield and sought them out.' Those who had sufficient grounds to claim for compensation were helped with the paper work. 'But authorities in the country were far from helpful,' said Farida. When UBINIG advertised the Dalkon Shield claim in the newspapers, government authorities called UBINIG's action as 'ill-intentioned' and that it would undermine the population control programme in the country. Nevertheless, UBINIG was undeterred and succeeded in filing a number of cases in the US court.

In New Zealand, the women's group Fertility Action pressured the Medical Association to require its members to trace all women fitted with the Shield, check that the IUD had been removed and inform them of their legal rights. Publicity was also given by the Ministry of Women's Affairs which sent out hundreds of information kits to users. Some 300 claims were filed from New Zealand.

Efforts such as these were finally linked up to the National Women's Health Network in New York City. The organisation had been active in the campaign to recall the Dalkon Shield. It is now coordinating this worldwide effort to ensure that women hurt by this product receive just monetary compensation from the manufacturer.

Despite these efforts, however, many women who would probably have sufficient grounds to sue the IUD manufacturer, will not do so. For example, in Brazil, the IUDs were prohibited in 1984. However, they were inserted in private clinics on a mass basis in poor women. Some estimate that fifty to sixty thousand Shields were used in Brazil. But no one is suing.

However, for those women who have joined hands across the barriers of distance, and picked their way through the judiciary maze to make laws work for them, it has been a giant step towards asserting their right to redress the damage caused to their bodies.

Based on information from various sources.