Between the 1930s and 1980s, diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic oestrogen, was prescribed to unwed mothers in Australia and elsewhere to halt milk production after they surrendered their children for adoption. Despite the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declaring it too carcinogenic for poultry in 1959, the drug remained widely used in maternity wards.
Initially marketed as a versatile solution for various medical issues, including miscarriage prevention and menopausal symptom relief, DES was particularly controversially administered to unmarried mothers. Approximately 150,000 women in Australia were compelled to take it, often feeling shamed and marginalised as single parents.
One of these women, Wendy Pankhurst, shared her experience of being coerced into giving up her baby at the age of 17. She was prescribed DES to stop her milk production without questioning the doctor’s recommendation, demonstrating the power dynamics that existed in the medical landscape at the time.
The health repercussions of DES were later revealed to be severe. Research in the U.S. linked the drug to a range of illnesses in both mothers and their offspring, including various cancers and reproductive issues in a group referred to as “DES sons and daughters.” Caitlin McCarthy, whose mother took DES, experienced precancerous cells in her cervix, attributed to her mother’s exposure to the drug.
Dr. Peter Myers, a scientist studying endocrine disruptors like DES, noted that such substances can alter genetic expressions across generations, raising alarms about their long-term health implications. In Australia, concern persists regarding the uninvestigated health effects on mothers and their subsequent children who were not directly exposed to DES during pregnancy.
Lily Arthur, who runs a support group for women affected by forced adoptions, voiced the community’s demand for research into the drug’s health impacts. Many survivors suffer from serious health issues today, such as cancers and endometriosis, which they suspect are connected to their past consumption of DES.
These women, along with their families, seek clarity and recognition similar to that granted to DES victims in the U.S. They are determined to understand the extent of the health risks they and future generations may face because of this medical scandal. The call for accountability and investigation continues, with mothers like Joyce Westerman reflecting on the loss of family members to cancer and the ongoing health challenges facing their descendants.
The legacy of DES continues to haunt its victims and raises essential questions about the ethics of medical practices and the need for comprehensive investigations into historical drug prescriptions and their consequences.