Ex-soldiers sue State over malaria drug
150 legal claims pending over controversial medicine
‘Side-effects widely recognised’
A FORMER soldier is suing the State over the side effects of an anti-malarial drug and more than 150 more have lodged similar actions.
Sgt Patrick Fedigan is expected to claim that he suffered serious mental health difficulties after taking Lariam.
His case, which is set to last between eight and ten weeks, will be closely watched by over 150 defence forces personnel who have lodged similar legal actions.
The first such case taken two years ago by Sgt Anthony Cole, was settled for undisclosed but ‘substantial’ compensation. If this action reaches judgment, it will be regarded as a test case for those to come. The drug Lariam has been blamed for causing permanent psychological and physical problems.
In Sgt Fedigan’s case, it is understood that he will claim he should not have been prescribed Lariam for the tours he served abroad, after he reported symptoms of anxiety and depression.
Lariam should not be taken by those who have reported mental health problems. Sgt Fedigan served in Eritrea in 2001, Liberia in 2004 and Chad in 2010.
In a separate legal action in November 2017, Sgt Anthony Cole claimed his life had been turned upside down by serious psychiatric troubles since being given the antimalaria drug.
The High Court heard the then 51year-old, married father-of-three had an exemplary service record spanning 33 years, and had earned a number of medals.
But his counsel, Jerry Healy SC, said the Lariam he was given before, during and after a tour of duty in Chad in early 2009 had left him feeling very depressed and irritable, with headaches and nightmares.
He said his ‘dreadful symptoms’ may last for the rest of his life.
Mr Healy said Chad in central Africa was prone to malarial conditions, so the army prescribed Lariam to all soldiers preparing to travel there. He said the potentially dangerous side-effects of the drug, such as paranoia, increased aggression and depression, were widely recognised by the medical profession.
But he alleged that the army had failed to monitor its use correctly, and that even after Sgt Cole had reported a number of side-effects from the drug while he was in Chad, he continued to be given it for a further four weeks after coming home.
He told Judge Bronagh O’Hanlon: ‘This is a case to some degree about the type of drug that was used, Lariam, but also about the way in which this drug was used and the way in which its use was monitored.’
Mr Healy noted that the medicine’s own advice to patients was that any psychiatric side effects should be reported, and a different drug used.
But he said the Irish Army advised its soldiers only to report an issue if it had become ‘intolerable’ – and cautioned them that if they could not take Lariam they would not be able to serve overseas.
Mr Healy said the drug should be administered in a medical setting, where doctors were alert to the potential side effects.
But he said soldiers including Sgt Cole, who served at Collins Barracks, Cork, had picked it up ‘like paracetamol in Tesco’.
His case was fully defended by the State, which denied that he suffered psychiatric or emotional distress and damage as a result of taking Lariam. It also denied that it was negligent in failing to warn members of the defence forces about the side effects and risks of the drug.
The settlement with Sgt Cole was reportedly made after he withdrew any claim relating to the Defence Forces’ choice of Lariam as the antimalarial drug for soldiers. Sgt Cole did not withdraw a claim that the drug caused long-lasting psychological damage after he was prescribed it for a tour of duty in Chad in 2009.
Around 100 of the cases pending in the High Court were lodged after Sgt Cole’s settlement was reached.