Sunday Times (Johannesburg) - July 1, 2001
Carmel Rickard

Annet Hayman, 41, a schoolteacher from Ladysmith, KwaZulu Natal, has launched legal action against Glaxo Wellcome on behalf of her young son and herself, for the damage they have suffered as the result of the death of her attorney husband, James, in 1998.

In her case, Hayman also names President Thabo Mbeki and the Minister of Health, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang as defendants because of their "interest in the outcome" and because of the statements that they have made on the toxicity of AZT and questioning the efficacy of the drug. Head of the South African Medicines Regulatory Authority, Professor Peter Eagles, is named as the fourth defendant.

In her formal claim against the pharmaceutical giant, Hayman says her husband began a month-long course of AZT and a related drug known as 3TC after investigations showed he tested positive for HIV.

At the time he weighed 68 kilograms, was not sick and showed no symptoms, she says. However, as soon as he began to take the medication in late July 1997, he became very ill, refused a second course of treatment, but never recovered and died less than a year later.

Although he suffered no opportunistic infection during the period of his illness, he progressively declined physically to the point where he became bedridden, unable to keep down any food, was incontinent, vomited uncontrollably, was unable to feed or bathe himself, could not walk without assistance, pick himself up when he fell, or speak without slurring.

Hayman claims that her husband "died directly as a result of cellular toxicity of AZT".

She claims that Glaxo Wellcome has a duty of care to the South African public not to misrepresent the effect of AZT by making claims that have either been disproved or that were unproven. The company also had a duty not to make unsafe or ineffective dosage recommendations, to properly describe AZT's ill effects and hazards, and to issue prominent warnings against AZT's potentially life-threatening toxicities.

She says that Glaxo should not supply an "unreasonably dangerous and defective drug".

According to the claim, while the package insert describes AZT as a beneficial drug that will extend the life of a patient or enhance the quality of life, in fact, taken orally as a medicine, AZT was incapable of an anti-HIV action.

Hayman claims that all studies on the effect of AZT on HIV DNA levels in the scientific literature say that it doesn't work.

Glaxo has already indicated that it will defend the claim, and has until next week to spell out its answer to each of the claims made by Hayman.

Attorneys involved in the case said it was likely that the matter would be argued in the High Court early next year.

They described it as a "potentially crucial case".

"For the first time we will be putting on trial a drug with an enormous market, world-wide. The issue has not come to court in any part of the world before," lawyers said.

010701
ST010705

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2001. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 2001. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .