Pharmacist cleared of charge of being unfit to practice in Emma Sloan case

Stheno

The pharmacist who refused to provide the mother of Emma Sloan an Epi pen without prescription was today cleared of being unfit to practice.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/emotional-scenes-as-case-against-pharmacist-who-refused-epipen-dismissed-34274262.html

Upon hearing of the verdict Emma Sloans mother claimed the entire proceeding was a farce.

Having followed it over the past week or so, I genuinely do not think the pharmacist has any case to answer, and instead wonder at the role of Emma's mother in this.

She choose to take a child with a severe peanut allergy who had suffered three previous reactions to a Chinese restaurant serving peanut based sauces.

Not only that, she failed to make sure they had an Epi pen with them.

In some of her testimony she claimed that she didn't realise how serious the allergy was and didn't know how to use an Epi pen, and had never been given an information leaflet in relation to them, despite testimony that she and her daughter were seen by a nurse specialist in the area and taken through an information leaflet.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/we-didnt-know-nut-allergy-could-be-fatal-mum-of-tragic-emma-34268158.html

It might sound very cold here, and I know the woman has lost a child, but I can't help feeling that if she had taken this whole issue more seriously, the entire tragedy could have been prevented.

MadsL

Equally, a good level of protection should be put in place protecting pharmacists from prosecution in "Good Samaritan" emergency situations.

dr.fuzzenstein

Yes, good someone had to die, as long as procedure was adhered to to the letter. What a glorious country we live in. What spineless weasles we are, his hopelessly enslaved to the rules that anyone would EVER think its good a child died, as long as we obeyed the rules. This is what males this country what it is. How spineless, dickless, brainless, hopeless we are, what a bunch of hyenas.
Had that been my child I would have told the chemist I'd break a bone for every time I heard the word "no".

gaius c

MadsL wrote: »

Equally, a good level of protection should be put in place protecting pharmacists from prosecution in "Good Samaritan" emergency situations.

Massive can of worms there and bound to be abused.

Stheno

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, good someone had to die, as long as procedure was adhered to to the letter. What a glorious country we live in.
Had that been my child I would have told the chemist I'd break a bone for every time I heard the word "no".

Think you've missed the point of my OP. The mothers lack of awareness of the potential dangers of the allergy and the consequences of a reaction seem to be the root cause of what happened here.

If she had been more aware, perhaps the situation would never have arisen

Gatling

Can't see why the pharmacist should have been dragged into court ,
It's a tragedy what happended but personally don't think he had anything to answer for ,

Anyone could have asked for any drug while putting emotional pressure on a chemist to hand out something potentially dangerous.

dr.fuzzenstein

Stheno wrote: »

Think you've missed the point of my OP. The mothers lack of awareness of the potential dangers of the allergy and the consequences of a reaction seem to be the root cause of what happened here.

If she had been more aware, perhaps the situation would never have arisen

Maybe so, but no inw should have to due because someone says "uhm, no, its against procedure". I feel fully justified in goodwining this thread by saying this is right beside Nazi soldiers opening the gas taps saying " I was only following orders". Anyone who cannot see that has got to be blind.
Nothing against you stheno, but really, is hiding behind the rules OK in this case? no it isn't, it never is. No health care professional who is not an utter cnut will ever refuse help. Fcuk the rules up the are with a broken bottle, this is a life.

Guy:Incognito

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, good someone had to die, as long as procedure was adhered to to the letter. What a glorious country we live in. What spineless weasles we are, his hopelessly enslaved to the rules that anyone would EVER think its good a child died, as long as we obeyed the rules. This is what males this country what it is. How spineless, dickless, brainless, hopeless we are, what a bunch of hyenas.
Had that been my child I would have told the chemist I'd break a bone for every time I heard the word "no".

So should they sell any prescription only drugs they are asked for n#by a woman that runs through the door shouting that someone is around the corner in need of it?

osarusan

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

What a glorious country we live in. What spineless weasles we are, his hopelessly enslaved to the rules that anyone would EVER think its good a child died, as long as we obeyed the rules.

Nobody anywhere thinks it's 'good a child died'.

Why are you talking such blatant strawman sh!t?

dr.fuzzenstein

osarusan wrote: »

Nobody anywhere thinks it's 'good a child died'.

Why are you talking such blatant strawman sh!t?

So she didn't die? Phew, and here I was all worried. All's good then.

él statutorio

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Maybe so, but no inw should have to due because someone says "uhm, no, its against procedure". I feel fully justified in goodwining this thread by saying this is right beside Nazi soldiers opening the gas taps saying " I was only following orders". Anyone who cannot see that has got to be blind.
Nothing against you stheno, but really, is hiding behind the rules OK in this case? no it isn't, it never is. No health care professional who is not an utter cnut will ever refuse help. Fcuk the rules up the are with a broken bottle, this is a life.

I think, from my reading of it anyway, the Mother of the child never made it clear to the pharmacist that the Epipen was needed for a child. Hence the resulting tragic death.
I honestly believe that if that had been made clear then the pharmacist would've provided the Epipen.

Guy:Incognito

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So she didn't die? Phew, and here I was all worried. All's good then.

Are you drunk?

dr.fuzzenstein

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So should they sell any prescription only drugs they are asked for n#by a woman that runs through the door shouting that someone is around the corner in need of it?

Of course not, they did the right thing, continued filing their nails and said "sorry love, company policy and all that".
Life and death situation? Sorry, I'm on me break, buddy.

LeinsterDub

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Of course not, they did the right thing, continued filing their nails and said "sorry love, company policy and all that".
Life and death situation? Sorry, I'm on me break, buddy.

And when someone playing hard and fast with the rules kills someone?

Cookie_Monster

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Of course not, they did the right thing, continued filing their nails and said "sorry love, company policy and all that".
Life and death situation? Sorry, I'm on me break, buddy.

and how are they supposed to miraculously know it's a real emergency and not some junkie trying to score free drugs?

KomradeBishop

It's utterly thick and callous to blame someone for making a life-threatening mistake, when common bloody sense says that bending the rules - i.e. the pharmacist walking outside, seeing someone dying of an anaphylactic shock, and giving them an epi pen - might resolve that mistake and save someones life.

I really dislike when people so callously blame the victim in cases like this, solely so they can say "dems the rules - should have known better".

Every human being knows that people aren't perfect, and make stupid mistakes all of the time - so when people demand an unreasonable level of perfection from the population in general, and use that as an excuse for not acting when there is an emergency 'because they were stupid/not-perfect' - then that is exactly callous and cold.


Given the life-saving potential of epi pens, versus the tiny potential for harm of having them widely distributed publicly, every restaurant and public place serving food should be allowed to stock these, and be given reasonable liability-reduction in deciding when it's ok to dispense these.

dr.fuzzenstein

él statutorio wrote: »

I think, from my reading of it anyway, the Mother of the child never made it clear to the pharmacist that the Epipen was needed for a child. Hence the resulting tragic death.
I honestly believe that if that had been made clear then the pharmacist would've provided the Epipen.

Hard to say, I would guess she did try:

“I'd like to know why the pharmacist didn't give me the pen. I told him what was happening but he said I would have to go to A&E.

My guess is that a distraught mother would make it very clear what's happening.

Gatling

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Of course not, they did the right thing, continued filing their nails and said "sorry love, company policy and all that".
Life and death situation? Sorry, I'm on me break, buddy.

A little dramatic .

You weren't there ,and I doubt anyone here was there .

Yet you don't mention the mother of a Child having potentially fatal allergic reactions not having an epi pen themselves or making sure their Child had their own epi pen ,

dr.fuzzenstein

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and how are they supposed to miraculously know it's a real emergency and not some junkie trying to score free drugs?

Junkies get high on epi pens now?
And you're right, better someone dies and "some junkie" doesn't get pills.

dr.fuzzenstein

Gatling wrote: »

A little dramatic .

You weren't there ,and I doubt anyone here was there .

Yet you don't mention the mother of a Child having potentially fatal allergic reactions not having an epi pen themselves or making sure their Child had their own epi pen ,

Yeah, she sure got taught a lesson, eh? That bitch got what was coming to her.
I don't give a flying fcuk what anyone says, that girl didn't have to die and what kind of pea-brained moron arsehole would say this is in any way a good thing.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and how are they supposed to miraculously know it's a real emergency and not some junkie trying to score free drugs?

So what if it's a junkie trying to score free drugs.No harm will be done by making a mistake and potentially giving some free drugs to a junkie.

Gatling

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yeah, she sure got taught a lesson, ey? That bitch got what was coming to her.

Don't be a dick .

Seriously

él statutorio

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Hard to say, I would guess she did try:



My guess is that a distraught mother would make it very clear what's happening.

While I would agree with the 2nd part, having lived and worked in that part of town for a long long time, I would imagine the pharmacist gets told quite a lot of tall tales from some of the "elements" that frequent that area. Unless it was made crystal clear to him I think he'd be right to be sceptical.

Cookie_Monster

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Junkies get high on epi pens now?

if they knew they could get them easily for free you can be sure they would figure out some way to

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And you're right, better someone dies and "some junkie" doesn't get pills.

ah right better ban all cars rather than have someone be run over by one :rolleyes:

Stheno

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Given the life-saving potential of epi pens, versus the tiny potential for harm of having them widely distributed publicly, every restaurant and public place serving food should be allowed to stock these, and be given reasonable liability-reduction in deciding when it's ok to dispense these.

The law is being changed at the moment in relation to these.

http://www.medicalindependent.ie/73363/more_emergency_medicines_now_allowed_to_be_administered_by_public

Organisations such as colleges, workplaces and sports venues will be allowed to hold these medicines and arrange for staff to be trained in their use. The Pre Hospital Emergency Care Council which accredits paramedics will be given the role of accrediting courses for lay people which will be available in coming months.

Pharmacists will also be able to supply and administer these medicines to individuals in emergency circumstances.”

Until this goes through it's still illegal to supply epi pens without prescription

jimgoose

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, good someone had to die, as long as procedure was adhered to to the letter. What a glorious country we live in. What spineless weasles we are, his hopelessly enslaved to the rules that anyone would EVER think its good a child died, as long as we obeyed the rules. This is what males this country what it is. How spineless, dickless, brainless, hopeless we are, what a bunch of hyenas.
Had that been my child I would have told the chemist I'd break a bone for every time I heard the word "no".

A moral victory for decent, forelock-tugging suckholes everywhere.

KomradeBishop

Stheno wrote: »

The law is being changed at the moment in relation to these.

http://www.medicalindependent.ie/73363/more_emergency_medicines_now_allowed_to_be_administered_by_public


Until this goes through it's still illegal to supply epi pens without prescription

Ok that's good to see, but to be honest...anyone who wouldn't break the law under these circumstances, still deserves very harsh judgement.

I'm sure most of us break the law every day downloading stuff off the Internet for starters, and any other dozens/hundreds of other minor things.

KERSPLAT!

Mod

Post in a civil manner or don't post at all. Fair warning.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Stheno wrote: »

Think you've missed the point of my OP. The mothers lack of awareness of the potential dangers of the allergy and the consequences of a reaction seem to be the root cause of what happened here.

If she had been more aware, perhaps the situation would never have arisen

But the mother is not a healthcare professional.

Surely The question that needs answering is does the pharmacist owe a duty of care and if so to what standard.
Are pharmacists healthcare professionals or just drug vendors.

Stheno

Yahir Beautiful Gunpowder wrote: »

But the mother is not a healthcare professional.

Surely The question that needs answering is does the pharmacist owe a duty of care and if so to what standard.
Are pharmacists healthcare professionals or just drug vendors.

I'd say they are both but bound to operate within the boundaries of the law, which in this instance prohibited him from providing an epi pen without prescription to a complete stranger. That would imo be compounded by the area in which the incident happened

dr.fuzzenstein

Gatling wrote: »

Don't be a dick .

Seriously

I'm sorry, but this makes me seriously mad.
What happened to decency, standing up for people, helping, in short, being a decent human being? Has it all been flushed down the loo for "I'm sorry my shift is over/it's not my job/the rules don't allow me to do that"? Really? Don't you think that is a bit sad?
Would you block and ambulance because the light is red, rather than move 1 meter and let them pass but cross the line and potentially get a ticket? Would you help someone who has collapsed on the street? Would you not do something that could potentially get you in trouble but save a life?
I cannot for one second believe anyone wouldn't.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Stheno wrote: »

I'd say they are both but bound to operate within the boundaries of the law, which in this instance prohibited him from providing an epi pen without prescription to a complete stranger. That would imo be compounded by the area in which the incident happened

No law prohibited from calling a doctor, an ambulance to his pharmacy. the decision he took is not what would be expected from a healthcare professional. very strange.

KomradeBishop

Just to clear this up, before anyone else tries to make the connection: Epi pens are not used recreationally. A junkie has no use for an epi pen, unless they are having an anaphylactic shock.

Lemming

Yahir Beautiful Gunpowder wrote: »

But the mother is not a healthcare professional.

Does a parent need to be a healthcare professional to know something's not right with their child and they are in need of help?

Cookie_Monster

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this makes me seriously mad.
What happened to decency, standing up for people, helping, in short, being a decent human being? Has it all been flushed down the loo for "I'm sorry my shift is over/it's not my job/the rules don't allow me to do that"? Really? Don't you think that is a bit sad?
Would you block and ambulance because the light is red, rather than move 1 meter and let them pass but cross the line and potentially get a ticket? Would you help someone who has collapsed on the street? Would you not do something that could potentially get you in trouble but save a life?
I cannot for one second believe anyone wouldn't.

because you could end up potentially killing someone by wrongly providing it, and in that case, you can be damn sure the parent would be screaming from the rooftops for a murder charge? damned if you do, damned if you don't but at least the law recognises the latter.

Moving through at red light or helping someone who has fallen isn't even comparable.

hatrickpatrick

Stheno wrote: »

Think you've missed the point of my OP. The mothers lack of awareness of the potential dangers of the allergy and the consequences of a reaction seem to be the root cause of what happened here.

If she had been more aware, perhaps the situation would never have arisen

That's irrelevant once it's happening though. Lecturing people about the past isn't going to stop the kid dying, the pharmacist choosing not to be a pr!ck would have. F*ck 'em. Won't be shopping there myself if the opportunity arises.

strandroad

It's good that the rules are being changed to facilitate such emergencies in the future and remove the grey area.

The family coming after the pharmacist is wrong though, what happened to the poor girl was first and foremost the result of the family ignoring her illness for years. She could have collapsed at 2am or in the middle of a park and would have no chance with no personal pen.

Exclamation Marc

If the pharmacist supplied the epi-pen illegally and it went to someone who died, everyone would rightfully be shouting for his head. An epi-pen can have serious side effects if used by someone who shouldn't be using it. It's certainly not lethal but it's side effects are not to be taken lightly.

It's absolutely tragic that someone died because they didn't get it when they needed it. However, if a pharmacist supplied it to someone without a prescription based on the emotion of someone in a shop and it was used by someone who shouldn't be using it and it caused serious side effects, what would the pharmacist have to defend himself?

Hindsight is 20/20 and it's absolutely awful what happened to that poor girl but a pharmacist is not as of yet authorised to provide the pen without a prescription.

dr.fuzzenstein

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

because you could end up potentially killing someone by wrongly providing it, and in that case, you can be damn sure the parent would be screaming from the rooftops for a murder charge? damned if you do, damned if you don't but at least the law recognises the latter.

Moving through at red light or helping someone who has fallen isn't even comparable.

The kid had an anaphylactic shock, this would have been very crystal clear to herself and her mother. I'd say there was very little chance for error in that diagnosis.
So you would be happy to let someone die in the street as long as you can follow the rules?

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Lemming wrote: »

Does a parent need to be a healthcare professional to know something's not right with their child and they are in need of help?

no, that was my point.

Samaris

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Of course not, they did the right thing, continued filing their nails and said "sorry love, company policy and all that".
Life and death situation? Sorry, I'm on me break, buddy.

I think you're rather exaggerating there. It was a tragic incident, but a woman coming in in a hurry and demanding a prescription drug is probably going to get refused. Because it's prescription. The pharmacist would certainly have to answer to his superiors and easily could have been fined or fired, because one does -not give out prescription drugs- to random people.

I suspect if the girl had been -there-, and obviously in medical distress, he would have helped her. But as was, how would he have explained it when he absolutely would have been pulled up on it? "I sold her prescription medication because she said someone was ill - no, I'm not sure where. Or who." And if questioned on whether the woman knew how to use it, or dosage, or even if she was sure it was anaphylactic shock, I can only imagine the answer would be "uhm."

It is a tragic thing that happened. But it wasn't the pharmacist's fault.

KomradeBishop

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

because you could end up potentially killing someone by wrongly providing it, and in that case, you can be damn sure the parent would be screaming from the rooftops for a murder charge? damned if you do, damned if you don't but at least the law recognises the latter.

Moving through at red light or helping someone who has fallen isn't even comparable.

If someone is asking for an epi pen because they left their own at home, chances are they know how to use them...

People really need to apply a bit of common sense here, this is a really obvious example of overzealous adherence to the law, where - in this circumstance, not in any imaginary circumstance that other posters bring up to defend the pharmacist - the situation is really easy to resolve, without any risks, just by walking outside to verify the person is going through an allergic reaction, before handing over an epi pen.

oppenheimer1

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The kid had an anaphylactic shock, this would have been very crystal clear to herself and her mother. I'd say there was very little chance for error in that diagnosis.
So you would be happy to let someone die in the street as long as you can follow the rules?

This is the bit I don't get. Why was she in the street and not in the pharmacy too? Had she collapsed?

jimgoose

mhge wrote: »

It's good that the rules are being changed to facilitate such emergencies in the future and remove the grey area.

The family coming after the pharmacist is wrong though, what happened to the poor girl was first and foremost the result of the family ignoring her illness for years. She could have collapsed at 2am or in the middle of a park and would have no chance with no personal pen.

An alien spacecraft could have landed on her. It didn't. What did happen was a pharmacy, with crates of these ten-dollar yokes, could have dispensed one and saved her. The pharmacist could have vaulted the counter and brought one to administer to the child himself. Instead, Computer Said No, a kid died, and everyone goes "Rightly so!". Fcuk Ireland. Fcuk it in the ear.

Exclamation Marc

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If someone is asking for an epi pen because they left their own at home, chances are they know how to use them...

People really need to apply a bit of common sense here, this is a really obvious example of overzealous adherence to the law, where - in this circumstance, not in any imaginary circumstance that other posters bring up to defend the pharmacist - the situation is really easy to resolve, without any risks, just by walking outside to verify the person is going through an allergic reaction, before handing over an epi pen.

Sorry, its not overzealous. If you're not authorised to do something, you can't go rogue and start handing out medicines to people based on the emotion of someone in a pharmacy and 'your judgement'.

He'd be struck off immediately.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Yahir Beautiful Gunpowder wrote: »

No law prohibited from calling a doctor, an ambulance to his pharmacy. the decision he took is not what would be expected from a healthcare professional. very strange.

The child was not present at the pharmacy if I understand the article right. The mother showed up, looked for it without a script and he wouldn't dispense it. I feel sorry for her, that's an awful harsh way to "learn her lesson", she'll never be right after losing her daughter but she does need to accept some responsibility here. It is not the pharmacists fault the child died. The child was not in the pharmacy. He just had a woman's word to go on. And it's not the nicest area.

If you have something as serious as a nut allergy, don't go to a restaurant and eat sauces with nuts in it. If 1 child has a nut allergy in a classroom, there is usually a "no nut" lunch policy for the entire class. Because it's so serious.
The mother does need to accept her own part in this too, because it's not victim blaming but someone else doesn't deserve having his career ruined and his staff receiving death threats because of the stupidity of someone else.

KomradeBishop

Manufactured Miracle wrote: »

If the pharmacist supplied the epi-pen illegally and it went to someone who died, everyone would rightfully be shouting for his head. An epi-pen can have serious side effects if used by someone who shouldn't be using it. It's certainly not lethal but it's side effects are not to be taken lightly.

It's absolutely tragic that someone died because they didn't get it when they needed it. However, if a pharmacist supplied it to someone without a prescription based on the emotion of someone in a shop and it was used by someone who shouldn't be using it and it caused serious side effects, what would the pharmacist have to defend himself?

Hindsight is 20/20 and it's absolutely awful what happened to that poor girl but a pharmacist is not as of yet authorised to provide the pen without a prescription.

All he had to do was walk out the door and see for himself...really obvious and easy solution to the whole problem; anyone who suspected a real possibility of danger to someones life, should (and in most cases would, I'd say) do that.

Exclamation Marc

Sure we'll all just wait until the time the pharmacist hands out something to someone convincing when they don't need it and the person it's administered to suffers seriously.

And then I'm sure you'll all jump back on the other side of the fence.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing to hang someone on.

Samaris

It is stated in the article that, according to evidence, he didn't know the child was nearby, or even who it was for.

dr.fuzzenstein

Samaris wrote: »

I think you're rather exaggerating there. It was a tragic incident, but a woman coming in in a hurry and demanding a prescription drug is probably going to get refused. Because it's prescription. The pharmacist would certainly have to answer to his superiors and easily could have been fined or fired, because one does -not give out prescription drugs- to random people.

I suspect if the girl had been -there-, and obviously in medical distress, he would have helped her. But as was, how would he have explained it when he absolutely would have been pulled up on it? "I sold her prescription medication because she said someone was ill - no, I'm not sure where. Or who." And if questioned on whether the woman knew how to use it, or dosage, or even if she was sure it was anaphylactic shock, I can only imagine the answer would be "uhm."

It is a tragic thing that happened. But it wasn't the pharmacist's fault.

The pharmacist took the correct course of action.
If I help, I could be in trouble. So better to just say "No", don't get involved, don't ask any questions and sure as hell don't get over your counter and see if there's anything you can do.
Yep, that's my point. "Not my job/them's the rules/sorry I have to look out for myself here". As long as the pharmacist was OK, the rest doesn't matter.
As a German I am actually disgusted to the bone by the weaselly attitude the Irish sometimes display.

"You will have to pay a few bucks watercharges". Riots, defiance, instructions on how to remove watermeters, assault and "peaceful protest"

"Sorry, can you please help me?"
"Nah, you see I came off my shift 2 minutes ago/oh sorry, this rule says I can't help/sorry, I don't want to get involved".
Pick and choose. Obey the rules when it means sticking your own neck out for no personal gain.

Samaris wrote: »

It is stated in the article that, according to evidence, he didn't know the child was nearby, or even who it was for.

I'm sure he made damn sure he didn't find out, that would have implicated him further. Keep your neck in, don't get involved, someone else's problem.

oppenheimer1

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The pharmacist took the correct course of action.
If I help, I could be in trouble. So better to just say "No", don't get involved, don't ask any questions and sure as hell don't get over your counter and see if there's anything you can do.
Yep, that's my point. "Not my job/them's the rules/sorry I have to look out for myself here". As long as the pharmacist was OK, the rest doesn't matter.
As a German I am actually disgusted to the bone by the weaselly attitude the Irish sometimes display.

"You will have to pay a few bucks watercharges". Riots, defiance, instructions on how to remove watermeters, assault and "peaceful protest"

"Sorry, can you please help me?"
"Nah, you see I came off my shift 2 minutes ago/oh sorry, this rule says I can't help/sorry, I don't want to get involved".
Pick and choose. Obey the rules when it means sticking your own neck out for no personal gain.

oh ffs:rolleyes: