Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent litigation in the United States - specifically the Texas Attorney General's lawsuit against the makers of Tylenol - has reignited global concern over the safety of paracetamol use during pregnancy and its alleged link to neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Although South African clinical guidelines continue to endorse paracetamol as safe and essential during pregnancy, the legal implications of such international controversies warrant closer scrutiny. METHODS: A narrative legal-ethical review was conducted, drawing on comparative legal frameworks, South African clinical guidelines and recent consensus statements. The article analyses the Texas Tylenol lawsuit, evaluates the evidentiary standards in South African versus US law and considers the ethical obligations of disclosure and risk communication. Sources include peer-reviewed literature, professional guidelines (e.g. Health Professions Council of South Africa [HPCSA] and South African Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists [SASOG]) and public health statements. No meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: The review found that while South African law requires a causal link for liability, international litigation can influence patient perceptions and clinical behaviour. South African guidelines continue to support paracetamol use in pregnancy, and adherence to these guidelines provides legal and ethical protection. However, practitioners may face increased patient anxiety, pressure to alter prescribing habits and the risk of defensive medicine. Ethical tensions arise between the duty to inform and the risk of fuelling misinformation. CONCLUSION: South African family practitioners must remain vigilant in their communication, documentation and reliance on evidence-based consensus.Contribution: By grounding clinical decisions in local guidelines and ethical reasoning, practitioners can navigate the challenges posed by global controversies while maintaining patient trust and legal defensibility.