A fresh dispute over spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) medicines at SAT Hospital in Thiruvananthapuram has focused attention on how a drug labelled for clinical trials allegedly reached a government hospital and was administered to a patient. Former Kerala health minister P K Sreemathi said the concern was not about generic medicines, but about the supply and use of a trial-labelled drug in a public health facility.
Sreemathi was responding to criticism directed at the Communist Party of India (Marxist) after three former health ministers held a press conference on the SMA drug controversy. She said the leaders had raised concerns expressed by parents of children with SMA and that their criticism was limited to seeking clarity on the medicine supplied to the hospital.
According to Sreemathi, the government must explain how the medicine reached SAT Hospital and why it was given to a patient. She questioned how a product labelled for clinical trials could have entered the hospital’s supply chain. The report does not include a response from the health department or SAT Hospital addressing those questions.
Sreemathi also sought to distinguish the dispute from the wider procurement of generic medicines by the state health system. She said the previous Left Democratic Front government had ordered a technical examination of the SMA medicine and appointed a technical committee to study it. A four-month gap followed before procurement could proceed after quality checks and tendering, she said.
She added that thousands of generic medicines had been procured after Veena George became health minister. Of the 800 medicines on the essential drugs list, she said, many were generics purchased through tenders at lower prices. “Getting medicines at lower prices is a good thing. But sample medicines should not reach govt hospitals,” she said.
The distinction is central to the dispute. Sreemathi maintained that the former ministers were not opposing generic medicines or lower-cost procurement. Their concern, she said, was whether a medicine intended for clinical trials had been supplied and administered through a government hospital, and whether the patient’s family had received adequate information.
She said the issue was not merely technical because the mother of a child with SMA had raised concerns requiring a clear answer from the government. Sreemathi also said doctors were responsible for explaining a medicine to parents and ensuring that they understood the implications when a drug meant for clinical trials was administered.
The immediate question for the health authorities is therefore the chain of supply and authorisation: how the medicine was procured or received, what quality and tender checks were applied, and on what basis it was administered at SAT Hospital. The government is expected to clarify these points in response to the concerns raised by Sreemathi and the parents of children with SMA.
