Abdul

lahivPf
izer

Fact
s:

In1996,nor
ther
nNi ger
iawasplaguedbyabact er
ialmeningi
ti
s.Oneoft
hemai
ntr
eat
ment
sit
eswastheInf
ect
iousDiseaseHospi
tal(
IDH)i
nKano,Nigeri
a.

Around t he same t ime,phar maceuticalgiant Pfizer was seeki ng the Food & Dr ug
Admini st
ration’
s( FDA)approvalforTrovafl
oxacinMesy late( commonlyknownas“ Trovan”
),a
newant i
bioticdesignedtofightbacter
ialmeni ngi
ti
sinchi l
dren.I
nordertoobtainthecli
nical
datar equiredbyt heFDA,Pf i
zerputt ogetherar esear chpr ot
ocolandallegedl
yr ecei
ved
permissionf rom t
heNi ger
iangov er
nmentt oconducttrialsinKano.

ThePf izert
eam concludedthetri
alaf
tertwoweeksand“lef
twithoutadmini
steri
ngfol
low-up
care.”
9Ev entual
ly,Tr
ovanwasappr ovedonlyforusein“
adultemergencycare”int
heUnited
Statesandwasbannedent i
rel
yintheEuropeanUnion.

Followingt heTr ovanexperiment,twoset sofNi ger

ianplai
ntif
fs(t
heAbdul l
ahiplai
nti
ffsand
theAdamupl ainti
ffs)f
il
edact i
onsi ntheSout hernDistr
ictofNew Yor k,clai
ming,int
eral ia,
violati
ons of a cust omar yi nternat
ional law nor m agai nst non-consensual medi cal
exper i
ment at
ion,thatthet ri
alfailedtomeetanymi ni
mum humanr esearchstandard,that
Trov anhadnev erbeent estedi nor alform onchi ldr
en,thatanimalt estshadshownl ife-
threateningsideef fect
s,thatthet eam fai
ledt osecurethei nf
ormedconsentoft hechildren
andt heirparents,andthatnofollow-upcar ewasadmi ni
stered.

The Dist
rictCour
tdismissed bot
h complai
ntsi
n 2002,ci
ti
ng a l
ack ofsubj
ectmat
ter
j
uri
sdicti
onundert
heAli
enTortStatut
e(ATS).

Theplaint
if
fsmadeaconsol
idat
edappeal
—Abdul
lahiv
.Pf
izer
—tot
heSecondCi
rcui
tCour
tof
Appeals.

I
ssue:

(
1)WONPf
izerv
iol
atedi
nter
nat
ionall
awonnon-consensualmedi
calexper
iment
ati
on.

(
2)WONNi
ger
iaof
fer
sanadequat
efor
um f
ort
headj
udi
cat
ionofpl
aint
if
f'
scl
aims

Rul
ing:

1.Yes,Pfizer'
s Trov
an cl
ini
caltrial
sv i
olated t
he uni
ver
sal
ly accept
ed nor
m of
cust
omaryi
nter
nationallaw onnon-consensualmedicalexper
iment
ati
on.Thus,plai
nti
ff
's
cl
aimsar
eaff
ordedsubjectmatt
erj
uri
sdict
ionundertheATS.
TheCour
tdet
ermi
nedwhet
hert
henor
m al
leged-

(1)i
sanorm ofi
nternat
ionalchar
actert
hatStat
esuni
ver
sal
lyabi
deby
,oraccedet
o,out
ofasenseofl
egalobli
gati
on;UNIVERSALITY

(Todeterminethecour texaminedthefoursourcesofinternati
onationallaw,ascl ai
med
byt he peti
ti
oners,to have cat
egori
call
yf or
bidded medicalexper i
ment ati
on on non-
consenti
ng human subj ectsnamely:(1)theNur emberg Code,( 2)t heWor l
d Medi cal
Associati
on'
sDecl arat
ion ofHelsi
nkin;(3)theguideli
nesaut hor
ed byt heCounci lof
Int
ernati
onalOrganizati
onsf orMedicalServi
ces;and( 4)Ar t
icle7oft heI nt
ernati
onal
CovenentonCi v
ilandPol i
ti
calRi
ghts.
)

(
2)i
sdef
inedwi
thspeci
fi
cit
y;SPECI
FICI
TY

(Thosecustomeryi
nter
nationall
aw nor
mst
hatarenol
essdef
ini
tei
ncont
ent
..t
hant
he
hist
ori
calparadi
gmsfamil
iarwhenATSwasenact
ed.
)

(
3)i
sofmut
ualconcer
ntot
heSt
ates.MUTUALCONCERN

(Stat
esenteredintotwoexpressandbi ndingint
ernat
ionalagreementsprohi
bit
ingnon-
consensualmedicalexper
imentati
on---I CCPRandtheConv enti
ononHumanRi ghtsand
Biomedici
ne.The nat i
ons oft he world have made i tthei
rbusiness,botht hrough
int
ernat
ionalaccordsanduni l
ateralaction,todemonst r
atetheiri
ntent
iontoel i
mi nat
e
conductofthetypeall
egedinthecompl aint.
)

2.No,Ni
ger
iahasnotbeenshownt
obeanadequat
efor
um f
ort
headj
udi
cat
ionofpl
aint
if
f'
s
cl
aim.

Plai
nti
ff
:Theycoul
dnotbr ingthesui
tinKano'
sFeder
alHi
ghCour
tgi
veni
tscor
rupt
ionand
suscept
ibi
lt
ytopol
it
icali
nfl
uence.

RespondentPf i
zer:ThatFHC i
nKanodi dprovi
deanadequatef or
um becausePfizerwas
subjetctoserv
iceinKano,theNiger
ianlawrecogni
zes"
negl
igence,medicalmal
practi
ceand
personalinj
uryclaims",andatthattimePfizerwasalr
eadydef endi
ngbeforeFHC i nan
unrelat
edcase.

Cour
t:TheCour
tgr
ant
edPf
izer
'sMot
iont
oDi
smi
ssf
orf
orum non-conv
eni
ens.

TheCourtrecogni
zeditsdutytoexerci
serestr
aintwhenassessi
ngt hesuf
fi
ciencyofot
her
nat
ions'
court
s,andthatpubl
icandpr
ivat
einter
estsfav
oredsui
tinNigeri
a
 Di
smi
ssi
ngt
heCase;t
hePr
inci
pleofFor
um NonConveni
ens

Cant
hecour
t,,
sti
llr
efuset
otr
yit
?

Thecour t,althoughaut horizedbyl awt otakecognizanceofaconf l

ict
spr oblem mayr ef
uset o
tryitbyinv okingthepr inci
pleoff orum nonconv eniens,f
orpracti
calpurposes( eg.beli
efthat
themat tercanbebet t
ert ri
edanddeci dedelsewhere,eit
herbecausethemai naspectoft he
caset r
anspi r
edi naf oreignjuri
sdicti
on, orthematerialwi
tnesseshaveresidencet her
e,etc.or
itwouldnotent ertai
nt hesui ti
fitbel i
evesitsel
ftobeaser iousinconvenientforum,provided
thatamor econv enientforum isavailabletoplai
nti
ff
)

Thr
eef
act
orsar
econsi
der
edf
or“
mostconveni
entf
orum”
:

1.Whet
hert
hef
orum i
sonet
owhi
cht
hepar
ti
esmayconv
eni
ent
lyr
esor
t

2.Whet
heri
tisi
naposi
ti
ont
omakeani
ntel
li
gentdeci
sionast
othel
awandt
hef
act
s

3.Whet
heri
thasori
sli
kel
ytohav
epowert
oenf
orcei
tsdeci
sion

(Pr
inci
pleofEf
fect
iveness–j
udgehasnor
ightt
opr
onounceaj
udgmenti
fitcannot
enf
orceit
)