Sued for doing the legal thing?

godtabh

Am I reading this correctly?

Girl dies from nut allergy. Chemist, as I under stand it, couldn't issue the epi pen as there was no prescription.

They settle for €50k. What has the chemist done wrong?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/family-of-teenage-girl-who-died-of-nut-allergy-settle-case-against-pharmacy-for-50000-40436407.html

ted1

But not the right thing.

mondeoman72

Strange indeed. At that time, the pharmacist was legally liable and as there was no prescription, did not/could not, give one. The law has changed since apparently, the good samaritan principle now will protect a person who acts in good faith.
This is what is being told to volunteer bodies at present, OMAC, St John, etc etc.

blindsider

It's not a great report as it doesn't provide the legal decision.

It's alll very well to make an argument, but any shyster can do that - upholding it is a different matter.

The pharmacy body says the pharmacist was right - but they get stung for €50K - shambles.

If the pharmacist had provided the EpiPen and been struck off - would they have been prosecuted by the authorities?

*The law doesn't deal in right/wrong - it deals in the law. (I have serious issues with this BTW, and I'm not a legal person in any way shape or form.)

Finally, the Good Samaritan law was introduced in 2011 - Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, Section 4 - did the Pharmacist not know - were they advised etc?

*Quoted to me quite sanctimoniously by legal professionals

mondeoman72

I am a first responder. If I were to stop and assist someone causing injury but save their life, I was open to being sued. We are taught, since this incident, "life over limb".
Example, you grab a person with a spinal injury and drag them to safety before a train runs them over, but cause them to be paralysed for life.
We were open to being sued, now we are not.

godtabh

ted1 wrote: »

But not the right thing.

Morally right and legal right are two different things and not the issue here.

I would have through the restaurant is where the liability was.

Dav010

blindsider wrote: »

It's not a great report as it doesn't provide the legal decision.

It's alll very well to make an argument, but any shyster can do that - upholding it is a different matter.

The pharmacy body says the pharmacist was right - but they get stung for €50K - shambles.

If the pharmacist had provided the EpiPen and been struck off - would they have been prosecuted by the authorities?

*The law doesn't deal in right/wrong - it deals in the law. (I have serious issues with this BTW, and I'm not a legal person in any way shape or form.)

Finally, the Good Samaritan law was introduced in 2011 - Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, Section 4 - did the Pharmacist not know - were they advised etc?

*Quoted to me quite sanctimoniously by legal professionals

There wasn’t a decision, it was a settlement.

Though the Pharmacist was technically correct to require a prescription, a child died soon after. €50k is worth the price of avoiding a Court case which could cause huge damage to reputation. I bet if that Pharmacist had that day again he would give that pen, even if he shouldn’t.

punisher5112

Why hadn't she had one, her family etc....

My sister has had this exact issue in her school, parents went mad as pen was left in the class.....

If the child etc is that allergic then it's up to them to protect.

godtabh

godtabh wrote: »

Morally right and legal right are two different things and not the issue here.

I would have through the restaurant is where the liability was.

I would have thought liability lay with the parents

mondeoman72

mondeoman72 wrote: »

Strange indeed. At that time, the pharmacist was legally liable and as there was no prescription, did not/could not, give one. The law has changed since apparently, the good samaritan principle now will protect a person who acts in good faith.
This is what is being told to volunteer bodies at present, OMAC, St John, etc etc.

No, thats not accurate at all. We have had the good faith principle for years and pharmacists absolutely can issue during an emergency situation which this was.

The Gardai at the time even asked for the pen so they could use it and he wouldnt give it under the good samarathan act 2011

Now, I still say that ultimately, the family should carry the can. My children have mild allergies and we always have the required items in our posession including the girls who have their 'going out' bags

mondeoman72

mondeoman72 wrote: »

I am a first responder. If I were to stop and assist someone causing injury but save their life, I was open to being sued. We are taught, since this incident, "life over limb".
Example, you grab a person with a spinal injury and drag them to safety before a train runs them over, but cause them to be paralysed for life.
We were open to being sued, now we are not.

When did you do your training? The good faith principle applied during my training 20 years ago

jimmycrackcorm

ted1 wrote: »

But not the right thing.

If a pharmacy gives out an EpiPen without a prescription and the recipient dies as a result, not only could the pharmacy be sued but also the pharmacist could face jail.

punisher5112

It just shows you do the right thing get sued, do the wrong thing get sued.... Nobody is safe.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If a pharmacy gives out an EpiPen without a prescription and the recipient dies as a result, not only could the pharmacy be sued but also the pharmacist could face jail.

The ‘emergency supply’ provisions of Regulation 8 of the Medicinal Products (Prescription and Control of Supply) Regulations 2003 (as amended) permit pharmacists, in emergency circumstances, to supply certain prescription only medicines without a prescription. Emergency supply can be carried out at the request of a patient or at the request of a prescriber.

(https://www.thepsi.ie/gns/inspection-enforcement/inspections/InspectorsAdvice/AdviceEmergencySupply.aspx)

The good samarathan law was two years prior to this event as well

Dayo93

As a parent with a kid with a peanut allergy the last place I would be bringing them to would be a Chinese buffet. The pharmacist not supplying an epi pen is a hard one , it sounded to me like he did not see the girl , if he had attended the scene it would have been clear that the girl needed an epi pen , I think it's something the pharmacist will have to live with. He had the power to save the girls life.

ByTheSea2019

mondeoman72 wrote: »

I am a first responder. If I were to stop and assist someone causing injury but save their life, I was open to being sued. We are taught, since this incident, "life over limb".
Example, you grab a person with a spinal injury and drag them to safety before a train runs them over, but cause them to be paralysed for life.
We were open to being sued, now we are not.

Would this apply even if you were saving someone against their will?

ted1

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If a pharmacy gives out an EpiPen without a prescription and the recipient dies as a result, not only could the pharmacy be sued but also the pharmacist could face jail.

I don’t believe that I’d correct.

Pharmacists are highly trained medical professionals. He should have been able to asses the situation and administer the epi pen.

My mother and nephew have allergies. And on several occasions have had to use Epi pens. Anaphylactic shocks are pretty obvious

LawBoy2018

I've rocked up to a pharmacist at least 5/6 times to get an inhaler when I suddenly found myself hard of breathing. I've never once had a prescription and always sorted the logistics out afterwards. What the pharmacist did was shameful, imo. But we're all entitled to our opinions.

Victor

blindsider wrote: »

The law doesn't deal in right/wrong - it deals in the law. (I have serious issues with this BTW, and I'm not a legal person in any way shape or form.)

If you think something is wrong with a law, don't break it, change it.

SupaCat95

godtabh wrote: »

Morally right and legal right are two different things and not the issue here.

I would have through the restaurant is where the liability was.

I have been followed the story from a few years back.
There is no mention that the girl was responsible or she didnt learn from previous episodes.
She had previous episodes. She didnt have an Epi-pen with her on the day or an emergency prescription.
She ate in a place where there were peanuts used.
Her mother didn't call for an ambulance in O'Connell Street.
There were so many safety barriers she went through.

Its disgusting blaming an innocent professionals for the persons own incompetence. Its like handing out awards for stupidity.

LawBoy2018

SupaCat95 wrote: »

I have been followed the story from a few years back.
There is no mention that the girl was responsible or she didnt learn from previous episodes.
She had previous episodes. She didnt have an Epi-pen with her on the day or an emergency prescription.
She ate in a place where there were peanuts used.
Her mother didn't call for an ambulance in O'Connell Street.
There were so many safety barriers she went through.

Its disgusting blaming an innocent professionals for the persons own incompetence. Its like handing out awards for stupidity.

Are you saying that she deserved to die?

Antares35

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

I've rocked up to a pharmacist at least 5/6 times to get an inhaler when I suddenly found myself hard of breathing. I've never once had a prescription and always sorted the logistics out afterwards. What the pharmacist did was shameful, imo. But we're all entitled to our opinions.

Exactly was just thinking this myself. My fiancé is asthmatic and he's got one or two emergency supplies when needed. A bit of a common sense approach is all that's needed, rather than hiding behind the legislation. It seems the pharmacist just opted for the "computer says no" approach.

SupaCat95

ted1 wrote: »

Pharmacists are highly trained medical professionals. He should have been able to asses the situation and administer the epi pen.

My mother and nephew have allergies. And on several occasions have had to use Epi pens. Anaphylactic shocks are pretty obvious

A pharmacist isnt a doctor they are not near the same profession. He did not see or assess the person.

Anaphylactic shock is a fairly serious condition, but the patient broke so many rules.

SupaCat95

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Are you saying that she deserved to die?

No but the Pharmacist isnt entirely responsible. If you go wandering down the train track late at night drunk, is the train driver responsible if you get run over by a train? The individual bears the responsibility for their own condition.

KaneToad

Dayo93 wrote: »

As a parent with a kid with a peanut allergy the last place I would be bringing them to would be a Chinese buffet. The pharmacist not supplying an epi pen is a hard one , it sounded to me like he did not see the girl , if he had attended the scene it would have been clear that the girl needed an epi pen , I think it's something the pharmacist will have to live with. He had the power to save the girls life.

It's a very difficult one. I'm not a pharmacist but if I were in that situation I'd be weighing up the following:

1) the likelihood that the unseen person really was in anaphylaxis and without their own epi pen

2) if a person was a regular epi pen user, would they be eating at the buffet in a Chinese restaurant

3) if the distressed person looking for the epi pen was suitably informed as to the patients condition and the epi pen was what was required

4) how many people I had previously encountered in the pharmacy that were trying to get medication that they shouldn't be getting

5) the sanction I might face for dispensing the epi pen erroneously

6) how far away the next pharmacy was

It was a terrible outcome for the poor child and her family. Particularly since they must blame themselves somewhat for not ensuring the medication was with them in the first instance. No amount of settlement will alleviate their loss. Hopefully the payment will assist with making some aspect of their life easier.

SupaCat95

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

I've rocked up to a pharmacist at least 5/6 times to get an inhaler when I suddenly found myself hard of breathing. I've never once had a prescription and always sorted the logistics out afterwards. What the pharmacist did was shameful, imo. But we're all entitled to our opinions.

Now do you have a regular relationship with that pharmacist? and sorting it out afterwards? Not really the same as rocking up to the shop and saying can I have an Epipen with no prescription when the Pharmacist (at the time) could have been struck off. Why didnt the mother call for an ambulance, and she could have been given one for free?

Victor

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The ‘emergency supply’ provisions of Regulation 8 of the Medicinal Products (Prescription and Control of Supply) Regulations 2003 (as amended) permit pharmacists, in emergency circumstances, to supply certain prescription only medicines without a prescription. Emergency supply can be carried out at the request of a patient or at the request of a prescriber.

(https://www.thepsi.ie/gns/inspection-enforcement/inspections/InspectorsAdvice/AdviceEmergencySupply.aspx)

The good samarathan law was two years prior to this event as well

I'm not sure if that is quite the same thing / scale as this case. Ii think that note is aimed at patients on regular medication, with their regular pharmacist, who for example forgot to renew their prescription on time or lost some medication. Random people coming in off the street asking for serious drugs would be subject to a much higher standard.

Antares35

SupaCat95 wrote: »

No but the Pharmacist isnt entirely responsible. If you go wandering down the train track late at night drunk, is the train driver responsible if you get run over by a train? The individual bears the responsibility for their own condition.

Depending on the situation, the courts will often find that there was a certain element of contributory negligence e.g. I believe whiplash claims can be reduced by around 40percent where the injured party wasn't wearing a seatbelt. But this doesn't absolve the other parties of their duty of care. There isn't an "asking for it" principle.

Antares35

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Now do you have a regular relationship with that pharmacist? and sorting it out afterwards? Not really the same as rocking up to the shop and saying can I have an Epipen with no prescription when the Pharmacist (at the time) could have been struck off. Why didnt the mother call for an ambulance, and she could have been given one for free?

My fiance has been given ventolin on an emergency basis from a pharmacy he has no records with.

KaneToad

Antares35 wrote: »

My fiance has been given ventolin on an emergency basis from a pharmacy he has no records with.

Is epinephrine a more potent/dangerous drug than ventolin? Is it more likely to be taken to induce a high?

I don't know..

SupaCat95

Antares35 wrote: »

My fiancé is asthmatic and he's got one or two emergency supplies when needed. A bit of a common sense approach is all that's needed, rather than hiding behind the legislation. It seems the pharmacist just opted for the "computer says no" approach.

Its not hiding behind legislation, the pharmacist would have been stuck off for a profession he studied for 6 years or more for. The legislation was there to protect the general public from pharmacists getting "high on their own supply". What if you were regulator and stuff was going missing without prescriptions like methadone? What would you be thinking? Very easy to say "hiding behind legislation" when its not your career and professional registration at stake.