Contact us
Please enter your name
Please enter your telephone number
Please enter your email address
Please enter the details of your enquiry

Please type the following word into the box below:

We’ll only use this information to handle your enquiry and we won’t share it with any third parties. For more details see our Privacy Policy

Repeat Prescriptions Reduced Family Man to Zombie-Like State

Doctors bear a heavy burden but everyone is entitled to expect that the advice and treatment they give is competent. In one case, a widow whose husband spent years in a zombie-like state after being repeatedly prescribed a powerful psychoactive drug won the right to substantial compensation from a GP.

The man had been suffering from depressive symptoms and chronic fatigue syndrome when he was prescribed the potentially addictive drug. His condition had improved after he was weaned off it, but he ultimately took his own life. His widow sued the GP, who had signed six repeat prescriptions over a period of two and a half years.

The GP accepted that such long-term use of the drug should only have been prescribed under the supervision of a psychiatrist and that regular medication reviews should have been carried out. He should have been warned of the risk of addiction and advised to undergo a structured withdrawal programme when ready.

In ruling on his widow's claim, the High Court found that his suicide was not linked to the medication. However, taking it for such a prolonged period had reduced him to a pitiful state. The drug was ineffective in treating his underlying condition and the repeat prescriptions had resulted in a crippling dependency from which it became far harder for him to withdraw.

His widow was awarded damages of £25,000 in respect of the pain, suffering and loss of amenity her husband endured during the relevant period. Further sums were awarded in respect of the care she had given him and the treatment costs incurred by the family.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.