Has anyone ever sued a GP for side effects of a medication?

[jemimavintage]

Hello lovely group - Very quickly...

I had painful periods. I was refused a stronger painkiller to help with them. I'm now 50. This all kicked off approx. 3 years ago. Before then NO HISTORY of painful periods (even tho they've been getting more and more painful since a c-section in 1995), no history of pain meds, no history of ANY type of illness... Normal weight, 8 stone.

GP gives me Cerelle... within a month I am very very poorly... within 3 months I've had an emergency admission into a hospital in USA and had 3 procedures: gallbladder removal (no stones, no sludge, only mega irritation, cholecystitis), sphinctertomoy (because the sphincter had closed shut and blown my common bile duct out to several size that it should be, right up into my liver actually!!, and some stenting of that duct to help keep it open. The cost was $76,000. Health insurance paid it.

I have zero doubt that the WHOLE ISSUE, was caused by Cerelle. 'Gallbladder' disease is listed as a side effect. It also did NOTHING to stop my period pain, in fact, it gave me cramps and bleeding every single day.

I feel pretty mad to have gone through all of that. I was so scared. 6 days in hospital feeling very very poorly. Some outpatient appointments, a private MRCP scan in Harley St when I got back for £3,000 of my own money because I was still in pain and was worried that the hospital in USA (small border town) had screwed up. Well they had. I HAD acute pancreatitis from the gallbladder/sphincter issue....and no-one there told me. That lead to me having pancreatitis for 12 months and not realising it. My UK GP - the same practice - dismissed the Harley St conclusion that I had acute pancreatitis and tried to not give me any pain relief, saying it wasn't possible that I had it because my GB had now come out.

The Cerelle had a 'side effects' sheet in the box. One never thinks that one will GET the side effects. And I actually believed....that the 'pill' would stop my periods and give me some much needed relief.

On to today, I have adenomyosis and possibly endometriosis.. This has nothing to do with why I'm interested in whether I can DO anything about having suffered those side effects as a result of taking Cerelle tho..

I mean, can we bring a case for side effects from a med that the GP probably thought would.........help the situation??!!? It was a direct bunch of CRAP I got from that medication..

thanks group,

Jem x

Hi 'expatinscotland' - no, I cannot. You are correct. But anything like this, is always a question of 'on balance', with the chronology and other variables taken into account. I think patients have the right to better information regarding this and other meds. And the right to fuller explanations from people prescribing.

thanks

Jem :)

And like pp said, medically, on balance, it is much more likely that if anything it is linked to the issues which led to the tablet being prescribed in the first place rather than the tablet itself

How are a phamacutical company making money from not listing a side effect? There are strict laws surrounding medications. What would they gain by lying to everyone? Have you spoken to your GP about this paranoia?

Hi 'Bombardier' - in the hospital they gave oxycodone for pain relief. There were no side effects from that med, for me anyway. And these things are always always a choice - sure - but for the leaflet should be explicit about the issue of SoD/AP/CBD/liver damage. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with patients requiring more information.

Multiple meds? Only meds prescribed to me for non-existant conditions for...on and off 34 years... the only side effect from which was weight gain.

This is specifically about the med Cerelle and its leaflet. Sure, pain relief for surgery also carries risks. This is not a 'don't take any med, you might die', this is 'the leaflet for Cerelle should make explicit that major organ damage is a potential'.

thanks

Jem :)

Every drug has many potential side effects, you think GP's have time to sit there and explain each one, potential complications and treatment of each in a 10 minute appointment? No one is to blame, you were unlucky, that's it. Why do you need to lay the blame on someone anyway?

Hi 'Dobby' - oh gosh, billions have been taken from the nefarious actions of pharma companies. Just google it. Nothing to do with me. I would prefer them to be explicit in their leaflets.

thanks

Jem :)

That wasn't quite the point I was making. You've described needing a sphincterotomy because you had a tight sphincter - that is not GB disease. An obstructed CBD caused by a tight sphincter is the most likely cause of your acalculous cholecystitis. The pancreatitis was secondary to instrumentation of the CBD. Hence your GB problems are most likely nothing to do with the drug but are just coincidental in timing with you having started the drug.

You are clearly very angry and clearly aren't that interested in hearing opinions that are different to your own (which is most of our opinions so far). If you really feel the need then go nuts & sue someone. It'll be defended.

Hi 'itcuddles' - a GP has time to talk through a med with a patient. A pharma company has time to make a more explicit side effect leaflet. It's quite simple really.

thanks

Jem :)

bnf.nice.org.uk/drug/oxycodone-hydrochloride.html

So any claims you wouldn’t take a medication because of side effects are pretty hard to prove given you made an “informed choice” to take a medication with potential side effects like this!

Hi 'walkingthroughawall' - wow, I didn't know you were me, lol.. All of those issues stemmed from the GB issue and occurred at the same time. You can argue with the top HPB dr in the UK if you like, who I saw in Harley St after he looked over my US notes.

thanks

Jem :)

Hi 'Sirzy' - I wouldn't take oxycodone for 'no' reason or for nonsurgical reasons. I would have to take a punt on what the leaflet says and make a choice. But if the leaflet for Cerelle had said: liver/SoD/CBD/ pancreas damage - no, I would't have taken it.

thanks

jem :)

You can only sue if there’s been negligence/poor practice.

Prescribing the correct medication for a condition with a known side effect which you got but is in the leaflet is neither. Infact if you get a rare but known complication which isn’t in the leaflet you still can’t sue if the incidence is under a certain rate (think it’s 1 in 100,000 off the top of my head but may be wrong). It’s the same as a doctor prior to surgery doesn’t tell you all the possible complications, just the ones over a certain incidence. That’s standard practice.

I had a 1 in a million reaction to a bog standard antibiotic and was very ill. I hadn’t been told that it was a possible complication.....most doctors I know (I work with a lot) weren’t aware and they prescribe this medication frequently.

'On balance' you were suffering abdominal pain for three years before taking a very commonly prescribed synthetic progesterone for one month.
'On balance' there is no way that all these things were caused by the Cerelle.
'On balance' I know a bit (actually a lot) about this, and there are at least 2 possibly more Doctors on here and we have all tried to engage with you.
'On balance' you are clearly determined to find someone (the mysterious 'Pharma' one presumes even though the MHRA and EMEA will have approved the package inserts) to blame where no blame lies.

'On balance' I'm out.

They were explicit. Show me one study that shows that cerelle definitely causes these side effects? Show me any medical paper that proves any of what you have said? They only have to put on the leaflets side effects that have been reported to them. If no one else has ever experienced a side effect how can they put it on the leaflet? You really refuse to believe anything anyone else says to you, many people have explained that you have no case, people have given you other possible reasons for your gallbladder issues and subsequent complications including at least one Dr but you refuse to listen to them.

Hi 'notaregularpenguin' - and I find that...very rough actually. I don't think it's unreasonable for docs and pharma to be MORE explicit in their leaflets and descriptions. And I think docs and pharma could be FAR MORE explicit in their descriptions. Gone....should be the days where the patient isn't an active participant in the discussion and treated with respect and a minimum level of understanding. But yes, rare reactions 'happen'.

thanks

Jem :)

And you can’t blame the leaflet for saying gallbladder disease but not explaining in enough detail what the possible outcomes of gallbladder disease are. You’re expected to read the leaflet and make a decision if you want to take the risk or not. If you don’t know what gallbladder disease entails you google or ask the doctor to clarify. I could give you a 4 hour lecture on gallbladder disease and still not cover everything.

Hi again 'Dobby' - you're losing the point and drifting. My issue is the lack of explicit info in the side effects listings.

thanks

Jem :)

By all means start a campaign for better information onnleaflets if you wish but you honestly won’t get anywhere suing. And it’s a stressful process. I understand you’re angry but you’re focusing on the wrong stuff.

Hi 'notaregularpenguin' - point taken. I still think tho that vital organ damage is far too important of a side effect - however rare - to leave out. Let the patient make an informed choice. That's what I say.

thanks

Jem :)

I wouldn't take oxycodone for 'no' reason or for nonsurgical reasons. I would have to take a punt on what the leaflet says and make a choice.

But you continued to take it in the UK, with full notification of the side effects.

Any defence will have access to your medical records. They'll tear you apart.

AIBU?
Yes you are!
You're wrong! AIBU? Cheers Gem
Yep, you still are.
And it's people like you with spurious claims like this that will mean the end of the NHS and more young people not wanting to do medicine.

Cue...AIBU because there were no Doctors to see me and when I eventually did see one they refused to prescribe me any medication without me signing a form saying I wouldn't sue if I had a side effect & then they charged me £150!

Well done
MsJolly

Hi 'scrumples' - stop CRYING over someones posting style.. What's up with your spacing and stupid name, lol... Who gives a crap. You give a crap about....the posting style of various people on Mumsnet? Really? You lose sleep over such things? I don't.

thanks

Jem :)

The patient information leaflet for Cerelle® very specifically instructs patients to see a doctor as soon as possible if they get sudden onset stomach ache, cautioning that they may also note yellowing of the eyes and dark urine, possibly indicating liver problems. That level of information is sufficient to alert patients to what symptoms they must be alert to and which area of the body would be affected.

You can't convince me that if someone told you 'your liver could be knackered by this drug but your common bile duct will be ok....' it would make you take the drug, and conversely 'your liver will be ok, but your common bile duct will be knackered' would make you stop taking it.

Incidentally, the mechanism of pancreatitis is that your bile digests your organs, so if you had an obstruction of your CBD it really doesn't matter whether it was your gall bladder or your liver that was done-for first.

Either way, the leaflet warns against liver damage, and it's just unfortunate that you got some. As many people get pancreatitis each year for no apparent reason anyway, you'll never know why you got it. You're making a link to try and make sense of your traumatic experience, which is what we all do to survive. I wish you well, but suing is not the answer and won't close any doors for you.