I have always said that I never get angry, but I think I may have to revise that statement. You’d think by the following conversation, that I had lost my purse or something equally trivial, but hey, what’s a son to Lundbeck pharmaceuticals?
Sept 20 2013
RE; My son’s death (Shane Clancy)
To whom it concerns,
It has come to my attention that the CIOMS report which I have received for my son’s death is unfactual. The box marked ‘did event reappear after reintroduction’, is inexplicably blank. As you can see from my son’s medical records which I have attached for your attention, there is clearly a challenge, dechallenge and rechallenge period. The significance of my son’s suicide attempt shortly after his consumption of Citalopram and his completed suicide shortly after rechallenge surely did not go unnoticed by your pharmacovigilance department?
As this seems to be an oversight on Lundbeck’s part, can you rectify this important issue and get back to me and the Irish Medicines Board with another assessment. As I’m sure that deceased children are of huge importance to Lundbeck, this matter is surely one of utmost importance in order to prevent future fatalities.
Reply Sept 25 2013
Dear Ms Fennell,
I refer to your query below concerning the CIOMS report for your son’s case. The CIOMS form was completed in compliance with pharmacovigilance legislation which requires a revision of the form on the receipt of relevant new information. There is no requirement for a revision of the CIOMS form, as the case is considered up-to-date by the Irish Medicines Board.
Lundbeck (Ireland) Ltd