Sued for doing the legal thing?

Antares35

KaneToad wrote: »

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

I don't know..

I've no idea, I'm just responding to an implication that the emergency ventolin was received on the basis of an existing relationship with the pharmacy.

LawBoy2018

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.

A teenager forgetting her epipen at home while out for a meal with her mother is hardly akin to a person 'wandering down the train track late at night drunk'.

Why become a pharmacist if you've no interest in helping people? A little compassion goes a long way.

Apparently when he found out that the epipen was for the deceased rather than her mother, 'he nearly fell over' due to shock. Eh, what? How does that make any sense? It reads to me like the pharmacist was harbouring some sort of God complex whereby he felt as though he had the power to dictate whether or not a person was deserving of lifesaving medication.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/coroner-s-court/conflict-over-events-leading-to-death-of-teen-from-peanut-allergy-1.2156378

duffman13

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

Not to be smart here, the good faith principle is great in theory and this pharmacists actions were cleared by the PSI. I wouldnt be pointing the finger of blame at the pharmacist at all. There is CCTV footage from the shop and if your a pharmacist in Ireland, you most likely know someone who knows this pharmacist and some more details of what happened. The pharmacist will have to live with this for the rest of their life and that's a punishment enough, hindsight is a fantastic skill to possess

Antares35

SupaCat95 wrote: »

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.

In my opinion it is hiding. It wasn't methadone. It's also very easy to engage in what aboutery.

LawBoy2018

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?

No relationship whatsoever. I've gotten an emergency inhaler in Dublin, Kerry, Clare, Cork & Galway.

SupaCat95

Antares35 wrote: »

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

Now was your Fiance in the shop? Did Fiance by pass the ambulance in OConnell St? So its not really the same thing is it? Was it after this event two years ago?

Antares35

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Now was your Fiance in the shop? Did Fiance by pass the ambulance in OConnell St? So its not really the same thing is it? Was it after this event two years ago?

Wow so many questions you are very determined to distinguish this event from all other scenarios put to you. Your implication was that the ventolin was dispensed because of an existing relationship. I have countered that, as has another poster who experienced same. So by all means move onto the next thing you can think of. Yes my fiancé did present. And while it was within the last two years (since we are around that time together) I do know of others who availed of emergency ventolin in the past (talking 10-15 years back).

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your imaginary scenario of my finance walking past some ambulance. We might have to just disagree

LawBoy2018

duffman13 wrote: »

Not to be smart here, the good faith principle is great in theory and this pharmacists actions were cleared by the PSI. I wouldnt be pointing the finger of blame at the pharmacist at all. There is CCTV footage from the shop and if your a pharmacist in Ireland, you most likely know someone who knows this pharmacist and some more details of what happened. The pharmacist will have to live with this for the rest of their life and that's a punishment enough, hindsight is a fantastic skill to possess

At least he's alive though? It wasn't accidental, he made a conscious decision not to help someone who desperately needed lifesaving medication.

Does any rational person in this forum honestly believe that a pharmacist would be 'struck off' for providing another human being with lifesaving medication in their hour of need?

duffman13

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.

Emergency supplies are given out everyday particularly for things like in inhalers, its not unusual whatsoever, a pharmacist uses professional judgement every day to make that call. You are also the one in difficulty in front of the pharmacist so that judgement is much easier to use when speaking with a patient and getting clear and concise details

Antares35

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Does any rational person in this forum honestly believe that a pharmacist would be 'struck off' for providing another human being with lifesaving medication in their hour of need?

Doubt it. And given the choice between being struck off or having this on my conscience, I know what I'd choose.

killbillvol2

A friend of mine is a pharmacist working in the same area of Dublin. Naturally we talked about this at the time. She's not sure obviously but doesn't think she'd have given out an epipen on the night either. Pharmacies in that area have dozens of people wandering in every day looking for prescription meds without the prescription.

I'm still at a loss as to why the mother didn't have an epipen going to a Chinese restaurant or didn't call an ambulance.

Mrs OBumble

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

A teenager forgetting her epipen at home while out for a meal with her mother is hardly akin to a person 'wandering down the train track late at night drunk'.

Why become a pharmacist if you've no interest in helping people? A little compassion goes a long way.

Apparently when he found out that the epipen was for the deceased rather than her mother, 'he nearly fell over' due to shock. Eh, what? How does that make any sense? It reads to me like the pharmacist was harbouring some sort of God complex whereby he felt as though he had the power to dictate whether or not a person was deserving of lifesaving medication.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/coroner-s-court/conflict-over-events-leading-to-death-of-teen-from-peanut-allergy-1.2156378

So he was being hysterically asked for a prescription item by a person had no symptoms of needing one. He likely deals with regular drug-seeking, and this would have fit the pattern.

For a person with a known nut allergy, going to a buffet for a meal pretty much is equivalent to a drunken railway ramble.

odyssey06

This is a bit of a different situation to emergency ventolin for a regular user or someone who normally carries an epipen / has script for same.

From the IT article:
The court heard Emma was diagnosed with a nut allergy at five years old and went to hospital three times after her lips swelled after contact with nuts. This was resolved with an epipen each time.
Ms Sloan said she was not given any advice on how to use the epipen or how serious the allergy could be. “We were never told she could die from this or that we should be carrying an epipen at all times,” she said.
She told the coroner she could not recall getting instruction in using the epipen by a nurse at Our Lady’s Hospital, Crumlin in January 2009.

KaneToad

From a 2015 Irish Times article about the inquiry. It would seem that the unfortunate family may have underestimated the severity of the condition/attack too. The point about giving a homeless woman money while en route to hospital is particularly telling.

"The inquiry heard Emma had suffered at least three similar reactions prior to the incident on December 18th, 2013.

Ms Sloan said her daughter began complaining of a tingling sensation on her lips so they left to go to Temple Street Hospital as they did not have an EpiPen with them.

After failing to get one in the pharmacy, they rushed up the street to the carpark, she said. She agreed with Mr Kennedy that, on the way, they gave a homeless woman €5, but denied this caused any delay."

calfmuscle

Human error is incredibly common and if you live with a chronic condition for years eventually you mess up. This is why pharmacies are allowed to give out emergency meds with no prescription. This pharmacist made the decision not to give the pen and that was the wrong action.

SupaCat95

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

A teenager forgetting her epipen at home while out for a meal with her mother is hardly akin to a person 'wandering down the train track late at night drunk'.

Why become a pharmacist if you've no interest in helping people? A little compassion goes a long way.

Apparently when he found out that the epipen was for the deceased rather than her mother, 'he nearly fell over' due to shock. Eh, what? How does that make any sense? It reads to me like the pharmacist was harbouring some sort of God complex whereby he felt as though he had the power to dictate whether or not a person was deserving of lifesaving medication.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/coroner-s-court/conflict-over-events-leading-to-death-of-teen-from-peanut-allergy-1.2156378

Well she did break so many rules. She had a history of episodes. She didnt have her epipen. She didnt have her back up prescription. She went into place that served peanuts. Her mother never called an ambulance despite being in O'Connell street. How does that make any sense?

Its not a god complex the law prevents a god complex it is highly regulated. That protects both the professional and the patient.

I have a condition and I always have my mediation with me or in the car. Only once or twice it has had to be used in an emergency but I wouldn't be caught dead outside the door without it. When I go on holidays I have my medication on my person and an emergency prescription with me. I am responsible for myself and my own condition. That means I need not only know how to monitor my mediation but I have to understand my own condition. I cant blame anyone if I screw up.

LawBoy2018

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So he was being hysterically asked for a prescription item by a person had no symptoms of needing one. He likely deals with regular drug-seeking, and this would have fit the pattern.

For a person with a known nut allergy, going to a buffet for a meal pretty much is equivalent to a drunken railway ramble.

Surely he could have grabbed an epipen, escorted the girl's mother to the scene and then assessed the situation, if needs be. He obviously didn't care.

duffman13

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

At least he's alive though? It wasn't accidental, he made a conscious decision not to help someone who desperately needed lifesaving medication.

Does any rational person in this forum honestly believe that a pharmacist would be 'struck off' for providing another human being with lifesaving medication in their hour of need?

No, I am not a pharmacist and I completely get the logic of what others here are expressing. However there are a lot more details particularly with the conversation with the pharmacist that are in dispute and insulting him etc is unfair particularly given the information from the coroner and also the outcome of his own regulatory investigation.

A bit of bandwagoning happening on this when a lot of detail is not in the public domain.

It's an awful tragedy that could have been averted in a multitude of ways. It will never happen again hopefully as a result

Antares35

killbillvol2 wrote: »

I'm still at a loss as to why the mother didn't have an epipen going to a Chinese restaurant or didn't call an ambulance.

Maybe she panicked, or assumed that a pharmacy would dispense an emergency pen and that would be quicker than waiting for an ambulance. You'd imagine you'd do both, ring an ambulance en route to pharmacy or something. But then I'm applying a calm objective view, who knows what I'd do if that was my child. When we started weaning our baby a few months ago she had a near miss with some food. I completely panicked and ran into the garden with her thinking my neighbour would know what to do because she is a social worker. When I look back now it was such a stupid assumption. Luckily my fiancé was working at home and kept a cool head, gave her a good jolt and the food dislodged. We don't really know how we will react in an emergency, especially with a child. To be honest I kind of feel sorry for everyone in this case...

KaneToad

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Does any rational person in this forum honestly believe that a pharmacist would be 'struck off' for providing another human being with lifesaving medication in their hour of need?

Does any rational person believe that this pharmacist thought for one second that there was a child in imminent danger that could only be saved by him dispensing an epi pen?

LawBoy2018

KaneToad wrote: »

Does any rational person believe that this pharmacist thought for one second that there was a child in imminent danger that could only be saved by him dispensing an epi pen?

Why would that make a difference? Surely an 80 year old having an allergic reaction is as deserving of an epipen as a teenager? Why does the pharmacist get to decide who lives and who dies?

Tow

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Now do you have a regular relationship with that pharmacist?

A few years ago while on holidays my daughter needed an inhaler, she had not used one for two years. We got on the GP and she said go the chemist get their fax number/email and I'll send over a prescription. We went in and they said no need to bother getting a prescription sent and gave us an inhaler.

However, I always thought the parent were mad to bring her to Jimmy Chung's(?).

SupaCat95

Antares35 wrote: »

And while it was within the last two years (since we are around that time together) I do know of others who availed of emergency ventolin in the past (talking 10-15 years back).

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your imaginary scenario of my finance walking past some ambulance. We might have to just disagree

The legislation has changed in the last two years.

The girl wasnt in the shop. There is always an ambulance in O Connell street. Which would have reacted a lot faster than strolling to the chemist.

Antares35

SupaCat95 wrote: »

The legislation has changed in the last two years.

The girl wasnt in the shop. There is always an ambulance in O Connell street. Which would have reacted a lot faster than strolling to the chemist.

Yes I know it has, thank you. Did you miss the reference to same experience 10-15 years ago?

What makes you think the mother strolled? What mother "strolls" when her child can't breathe? Do I sense a bit of a judgey tone...

mondeoman72

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

Years ago, but retaught and discussed about 8 weeks ago during an FAR course.

SupaCat95

Tow wrote: »

A few years ago while on holidays my daughter needed an inhaler, she had not used one for two years. We got on the GP and she said go the chemist get their fax number/email and I'll send over a prescription. We went in and they said no need to bother getting a prescription sent and gave us an inhaler.

Well then the pharmacist took that on their own bat. Also an Epipen isnt Ventolin.

KaneToad

Antares35 wrote: »

Yes I know it has, thank you. Did you miss the reference to same experience 10-15 years ago?

What makes you think the mother strolled? What mother "strolls" when her child can't breathe? Do I sense a bit of a judgey tone...

"Ms Sloan said her daughter began complaining of a tingling sensation on her lips so they left to go to Temple Street Hospital as they did not have an EpiPen with them.

After failing to get one in the pharmacy, they rushed up the street to the carpark, she said. She agreed with Mr Kennedy that, on the way, they gave a homeless woman €5, but denied this caused any delay."

They stated they were rushing but also agreed that they stopped to give money to a homeless woman.

Unfortunately, it looks like the seriousness of the situation may have been underestimated.

SupaCat95

Antares35 wrote: »

Yes I know it has, thank you. Did you miss the reference to same experience 10-15 years ago?

What makes you think the mother strolled? What mother "strolls" when her child can't breathe? Do I sense a bit of a judgey tone...

Ventolin isnt the Epipen, not comparing like with like.
Well it was evidence given at trial. She stopped to give money to a homeless person. I was following the story at the time

Dav010

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.

This is incorrect on every level.

SupaCat95 wrote: »

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.

On the contrary, Pharmacists have an in depth knowledge of medications and anaphylaxis. Their job, and the public depend on that knowledge.

Dayo93

It sounds like the mother didn't really understand the severity of her daughters condition which is strange considering she had had a number of earlier reactions