Sued for doing the legal thing?

godtabh

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Who would you give medication to first? Someone you absolutely knew who had a condition or someone who came in off the street looking for medication that you didnt know from Adam? What if you gave out the wrong medication? Who would be responsible then? Should the pharmacist be struck off then?

That wasn’t the case here. The AGS came in and asked for it to be released i think

radia

It came out at the time, via the pharmacy staff evidence and the pharmacy cctv footage, that the mother did not present in any kind of panic. According to the pharmacy staff, Mrs Sloan asked could she get an Epipen (without indicating it was for any particular person or that there was an immediate crisis); she was asked whether she had a prescription, she said no, and hence was refiused. She accepted that without any particular fuss (again there was no sense of urgency), and left the pharmacy,

Could she have pushed harder? Could the pharmacist have probed more? Of course, and I'm sure both will forever regret they didn't, but that was how it was on the day.

Unfortunately the family underestimated the severity of the situation, and hence did not present the matter as a crisis to the pharmacy. Emma had had reactions before, but they hadn't been anywhere near as severe and as a result she and the family as a whole were less risk averse than might have been expected, and did not treat the situation with as much speed and gravity as imight have been expected if they had appreciated the situation fully.

It's all of a pattern with them not having the Epipen with them in the first place, and not calling an ambulance the second they realised that Emma had eatem sauce containing peanuts, and walking (pausing to give money to a beggar) rather than running or flagging down the nearest car to get to Temple Street.

The pharmacist did not know a child was dying (and at that point neither did her mother).The mother asked for an Epipen without communicating any sense of urgency because when she left Emma and walked ahead to go to the pharmacy the anaphylaxis hadn't progressed much. At the pharmacy the mother was advised they should call an ambulance, which was not unreasonable. The mother left the pharmacy calmly with a view to heading on to Temple Street as they had done on previous occasions. It was only after the pharamcy visit that the extent of the anaphylaxis became clear. If the mother thought her daughter was in danger of dying she would have made a much more vigorous request in the pharmacy. She didn't. She wasn't hysterical or particularly worried at that point.

From the Irish Times 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."

When Mrs Sloan left Emma on the street, her lips were tingling, and what they thought was on the cards was another lip swelling incident. They were happy enough that they'd get an epipen after heading up to Temple St and that that would solve it. This came out in the evidence at the time.

As an aside, it would also be very unusual for them not to have been advised, on any of those three hospital visits, how serious it could be, how important the Epipen was, and how to use the Epipen.

It's absoluitely natural to wish Emma's death hadn't happened, and to think of what could have been done differently. And it's human nature to try to find something that makes it not your fault, because how could you live with yourself thinking it was your fault. But that doesn't make it right to load all the blame on someone else.

And as someone has already said, a pharmacy in O'Connell Street would have all kinds of characters and chancers coming in asking for unsuitable stuff. They'd have to screen for suitability. One of the things they'd have been looking for was whether this was actually urgently needed. And unfortunately that's not how it was presented at the time.

In retrospect, with all the facts, of course a different decision could and should have been made. But what the pharmacist did at the time, with the information available at the time, was not unreasonable, and this was determined at the fitness to practice hearing.

As to why they'd therefore pay €50k? A child died. Who wouldn't feel bad about that? And there have been death threats to the pharmacist and pharmacy staff concerned. As the Independent article says, the payment was without admission of liability and "A solatium is paid to the dependents of a deceased person for mental distress in fatal personal injuries action and is intended to be an acknowledgement of the grief and upset suffered." I'd imagine they want to try to bring some kind of closure for all involved. It's a tragic case all round.

The only good to come out of it is the change in legislation that has made Epipens more widely available since then, and hopefuly the publicity has also made people with allergies more likely to carry their Epipens with them.

SupaCat95

godtabh wrote: »

That wasn’t the case here. The AGS came in and asked for it to be released i think

Did they? I dont recall that?

the_syco

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.

The difference is that you went there, and they could see that you needed it.

Unfortunately, the mother had sought the EpiPen without the child, and the pharmacist denied the request. And yes, junkies do seek the EpiPens.

Finally, if she had gotton it, what then? The mother didn't know how to use it.

SupaCat95

radia wrote: »

The pharmacist did not know a child was dying (and at that point neither did her mother).The mother asked for an Epipen without communicating any sense of urgency because when she left Emma and walked ahead to go to the pharmacy the anaphylaxis hadn't progressed much.

Y'know how the Pharmacist would have known it was a genuine emergency? The mother would have had a back up prescription.

I always say the Titanic didnt sink because it hit an iceberg. There were a whole load of safety measures skipped over. Its not fair on the Pharmacist to blame it all on him.

She should have been educated on the nut allergy.
She should have had her Epipen going out the door.
She should have had her back up prescription.
Her mother should had a reserve prescription.
She should have known about the risks of eating out.
Both she and the mother should have known about the developing situation.
She was advised to call an ambulance.

Yet they want to blame the Pharmacy/Pharmacist for obeying the regulations. If they presented a prescription at that late stage to the pharmacist she might have had some chance.

JustAThought

Guzzling mystery food at an all you can eat chinese buffet - with a food allergy? That you’ve been to hospital on an emergency basis with THREE TIMES already with?

The mother should be investigated by Tulsa.

ANYONE who knows Dublin & the state of O’Connell St or who has had the misfortune to work on or off O’C street knows the junkies roaring and staggering around shooting up, zombied out of their minds and using every trick to extort money, fags & whatever they can from every passer by.

The chemists ALL have or used have security on their doors - bouncers - such is the problem with every other chancer heading in & trying to get what they can to supplement themselves.

The chemist was long ago immediately cleared of any professional wrongdoing in relation to this.

What about the mother? Where is her duty of csre to the teenager? Who is going to step up and make accusations against her. She lost her child so is a victim too but so is the teenager. That was her fourth incident / epipen medical emergency. She ‘couldn’t remember’ the nurse giving her instructions and absolutely failed to heed the three serious previous medical emergencies and was eating at a chinese all you can buffet Nd eating satay sauce? ffs.

Those chemists should be given 50k worth of therapy for having to put up with this kind of utterly false allegation and dealing with the stress and reckless behaviour for an entirely predictable medical ‘emergency’ event.

Sounds more like the woman didn’t want to shell our for a doctors visit and to buy an epipen when she had the formula for getting one for free every time she needed it.

Now 50k for her loss added to the bank balance.

The real loser is the traumatised chemist and her poor daughter rip. Entirely predictable event the mother could have taken any one of many basic steps to prevent happening - for the 4th time.

Do her two other teenage daughters have allergies too ? And where is the father in all of this - never a word uttered about him.

SupaCat95

JustAThought wrote: »

The chemist was long ago immediately cleared of any professional wrongdoing in relation to this.

Those chemists should be given 50k worth of therapy for having to put up with this kind of utterly false allegation and dealing with the stress and reckless behaviour for an entirely predictable medical ‘emergency’ event.

The real loser is the traumatised chemist and her poor daughter rip. Entirely predictable event the mother could have taken any one of many basic steps to prevent happening - for the 4th time.

Exactly what about the Pharmacist? He may have been cleared professionally cleared but anyone doing a background check will find these articles. Then there is the trauma of getting death threats from these scumbags (who ever they maybe). He probably had to change job afterwards, maybe accommodation and had a professional competence hearing?

I wonder who was more traumatised?

Wesser

Mothers fault. She failed to ensure her daufhter had her epipen and then brought her to a chinese buffet. Imcompetent parenting

If a paid professional eg a social worker.... brought a child to a chinese buffet without her epipen she would be sued
But because the mother is not a paid professional there are no consequences for her neglect

JustAThought

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Exactly what about the Pharmacist? He may have been cleared professionally cleared but anyone doing a background check will find these articles. Then there is the trauma of getting death threats from these scumbags (who ever they maybe). He probably had to change job afterwards, maybe accommodation and had a professional competence hearing?

I wonder who was more traumatised?

The chemist was almost immediately cleared of any professional wrongdoing.

Who is protecting the remaining two daughters? And investigating the mothers duty of care to her teenage diagnosed daughter who died? Who is investigating her duty of care to her remaining two daughters? Where is the father ? Does he have custody of the daughters? Should he? Should she? Wasn’t three times without an epipen already enough - it was the fourth on that killed her - and still no epipen? And forraging for dinner at an all you can eat chinese restaurant where the food is served in about fifty troughs? And choosing to eat satay chicken??? And noone batting an eyelid in any of this? But running to sue because it was someone elses fault and trying to ruin their career and life.

Where is Tulsa in this? Can one be ‘responsible’ for this kind of same predictable medical emergency four times and not be investigated for neglect and still be in free charge of two other children with no authority batting an eye crooked at her?

RIP to the teenage daughter who didn’t make it.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

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.

What you think it's aimed is doesn't matter. It's a defined legal stance.

A garda telling you they need the drug immediately and you physically seeing the person dying covers it. Why do you think they had a case and got paid? Not by the restaurant or any other person's, just the pharmacist.

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

Good faith isn't just a principle though, it's been utilized for years. The good Samaritan law also existed 2 years before this happened.

I'm not a pharmacist so I don't know him. I'm not making any judgements on him as a person either. Nor do I wish ill in any manner.

SupaCat95

JustAThought wrote: »

The chemist was almost immediately cleared of any professional wrongdoing.

And forraging for dinner at an all you can eat chinese restaurant where the food is served in about fifty troughs?

Where is Tulsa in this?

The Pharmacist might have been cleared professionally but that stuff leaves a mark on you mentally with stress.

There is no telling how much cross contamination was going on that day on in that buffet. Now I am no food snob, I do the full buffet when I go a Caribbean cruise, let me eat good, fast and let me get back to the party. Now I am starting to see why others are wary of it. I have a stomach of iron and an over active immune system.

Tusla? Oh they are chasing after some poor working class father who is trying to work two jobs to get by. Kindly dont be bothering them with that sort of trivial non-sense. They only go after men put out of the family home. They may not wear habits but they are all from the same stock.

Beaverpunisher

ted1 wrote: »

Up until recently ambulance staff didn’t carry and couldn’t administer Epi pens. With my mother’s first reaction I called 999 and the local Doctor. The doctor arrived just before the ambulance. He went in the ambulance and administered 3 epi pens. She would of died had the doctor not been there. Lucky we had a energetic locum working in the gp practice

You’re statement regarding Paramedics not being able to administer adrenaline up until recently is incorrect.

JustAThought

SupaCat95 wrote: »

The Pharmacist might have been cleared professionally but that stuff leaves a mark on you mentally with stress.

There is no telling how much cross contamination was going on that day on in that buffet. Now I am no food snob, I do the full buffet when I go a Caribbean cruise, let me eat good, fast and let me get back to the party. Now I am starting to see why others are wary of it. I have a stomach of iron and an over active immune system.

Tusla? Oh they are chasing after some poor working class father who is trying to work two jobs to get by. Kindly dont be bothering them with that sort of trivial non-sense.

You misinterpret me - I’m asking why he and his views have been totally edited out of all of this. For all we know he’s a senior company exec. He’s totally invisible in this - maybe he should have exclusive care of the teenagers and a court order against the mother. I don’t know - its just odd that he has been totally erased or removed from the entire narrative.

And I agree - Tulsa should be doing better things. Starting with an investigation into the mother and a social worker allocated to review the care of the remaining daughters and see if protective supports for them should be in place .

Only in this country can you be responsible for repeatedly putting your childs life at medical risk and it to be ignored by the system until the child has a fourth medical emergency under the same ‘care’ and die. And then it’s someone elses fault. You couldn’t make it up. Few other first world countries would stand for it.

It’s the chemist and remaining daughters I feel sorry for. No doubt they can use google too. What will they think of their mother when they understand what she did - and
most obviously didn’t bother doing. It’s totally shocking.

SupaCat95

JustAThought wrote: »

You misinterpret me - I’m asking why he and his views have been totally edited out of all of this. For all we know he’s a senior company exec. He’s totally invisible in this - maybe he should have exclusive care of the teenagers and a court order against the mother. I don’t know - its just odd that he has been totally erased or removed from the entire narrative.

Hmmm he is possibly gone. I seriously doubt a senior company executives daughter didnt have the cop on to realise that Satay might contain peanuts. There is very much YOLO attitude going on there. I have a sister in law and she is just the same, "You cant tell me what do" when you try to warn her about stuff. You cant save them from themselves. Luckily the wife isnt from the same stock as the sister

radia

JustAThought wrote: »

The chemist was long ago immediately cleared of any professional wrongdoing

Actually it was worse than that. Emma Sloan died in Dec 2013 but there was such a backlog of cases that this pharmacist's hearing wasn't until two full years later in Dec 2015. So while he was cleared of wrongdoing promptly when the fitness to practise case did eventually arise, the poor sod was in limbo with it hanging over him for a long time - and the litigation has obviously been going on even longer.

SupaCat95

radia wrote: »

Actually it was worse than that. Emma Sloan died in Dec 2013 but there was such a backlog of cases that this pharmacist's hearing wasn't until two full years later in Dec 2015. So while he was cleared of wrongdoing promptly when the fitness to practise case did eventually arise, the poor sod was in limbo with it hanging over him for a long time - and the litigation has obviously been going on even longer.

What does that mean? He couldnt practice? He couldnt interview for another job or just the sheer stress of something like that hanging over him?
Once again if simple rules were followed.....

Jaysci20

Jimmy Chung's All-you-can-eat buffet.

Not carrying adrenaline pens.

Blaming doctors for not explaining how dangerous anaphylaxis is.

Not communicating the urgency of the situation.

Not being backed up legislatively to give the pen.

Death threats.

Completely avoidable tragedy that happened to Emma Sloan.
I also feel complete and utter sympathy for the chemist who was put in this situation. I hope he can move on and that he doesn't blame himself.

SupaCat95

Jaysci20 wrote: »

Not being backed up legislatively to give the pen.

Now even if the mother had an out of date prescription, the pharmacist would have worked out what was going on. I think he would have bent the rules as there was a precedence.

There was no evidence that they had learned from the previous three or four events. Not even a reserve prescription.

Dav010

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

A garda telling you they need the drug immediately and you physically seeing the person dying covers it. Why do you think they had a case and got paid? Not by the restaurant or any other person's, just the pharmacist.

A Gardai asking for the drug carries no more weight than the mother doing so.

I suspect the case was settled to avoid going to court, the fact that claimants have been awarded more for cut fingers should tell you that neither side considered there to be a strong chance of the claim succeeding.

The article references that “at the time” the restaurant was on Eden Quay, it’s possibly long gone at this stage. If they are gone, not much point in taking an expensive High Court case with no chance of getting paid.

ted1

Beaverpunisher wrote: »

You’re statement regarding Paramedics not being able to administer adrenaline up until recently is incorrect.

Depends on your definition or recent

calfmuscle

calfmuscle wrote: »

You should stop judging people with chronic illness

Would you get over yourself.

I have asthma, like that poster. How many times have I had to get an emergency inhaler?

Never.

And I'm generally quite disorganised in many areas of my life.

That poster has, if you believe it, had to call on pharmacists across several counties to exercise their discretion to provide them with emergency medication. That's ridiculous on the poster's part.

Although, frankly, it does not seem likely to me that any normal person who needs an inhaler to save their life would leave home without one so consistently.

grassylawn

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

This is a thread in the legal forum about a settlement though. Do you think you should be able to sue the pharmacist if they said no, even though the law says they dont have to give you anything?

I'm not a lawyer and I've no idea whether suing should have been possible or not. I'm just saying that my experience is that the done thing is to provide the medication. I don't know how known they were to one of the three pharmacists. I personally wasn't familiar with them. We were both very familiar with the other two.

I think I remember - but could be wrong - getting medication for myself from a pharmacist without a prescription some time ago, where I was not known to them. I had a card identifying myself as having the condition it addressed and the particular issue I needed it for was physically visible.

Heebie

godtabh wrote:

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

He allowed a human being to die by following the letter of the law precisely in a situation where any reasonable person would have assumed taking action was permissible to save a life.
He's guilty of manslaughter, effectively.

Dav010

Heebie wrote: »

He allowed a human being to die by following the letter of the law precisely in a situation where any reasonable person would have assumed taking action was permissible to save a life.
He's guilty of manslaughter, effectively.

What rubbish.

He did not allow a human being to die, he refused to supply a prescription drug to her mother without prescription and seemingly was not informed of the severity of the reaction.

Besides which, how can you be guilty of manslaughter by following the letter of the law precisely?

odyssey06

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Good faith isn't just a principle though, it's been utilized for years. The good Samaritan law also existed 2 years before this happened.

Is it a given the good samaritan law would have even applied?
That seems to be e.g. for scenarios where an off duty medic gives emergency assistance.

The pharmacist would not have been acting as a member of the generic public or rescue volunteer.
They were acting in their professional capacity at their place of work.

radia

SupaCat95 wrote: »

radia wrote: »

Actually it was worse than that. Emma Sloan died in Dec 2013 but there was such a backlog of cases that this pharmacist's hearing wasn't until two full years later in Dec 2015. So while he was cleared of wrongdoing promptly when the fitness to practise case did eventually arise, the poor sod was in limbo with it hanging over him for a long time - and the litigation has obviously been going on even longer.

What does that mean? He couldnt practice? He couldnt interview for another job or just the sheer stress of something like that hanging over him?
Once again if simple rules were followed.....

Legally it's possible for a pharmacist to be suspended from practice while waiting for a fitness to practise case to be processed (which can take years, as it did here) if there's judged to be a danger to the public. This was not the case for this pharmacist so legally he could still practise while awaiting his case, but he would have known that, at worst, if it went against him he could have been struck off. And in the meantime he (and the other staff) were getting death threats at his workplace, and what other workplace was going to take him on with that hanging over him? Plus all the media publicity when the incident happened, when the hearing took place, when the law was changed, every time there's another allergy case in the media and the Sloan case is referenced, when the litigation was taken... And he'd be a very unusual person if he wasn't torturing himself every day with what ifs and if onlys. So yes, an enormous amount of stress you'd have to think.

stoneill

None of us was there at the time.
We do not know the exact circumstances.
Stop blaming people, nobody involved wanted this outcome.
This is a a total tragedy and a loss of a young life.
As a society we should learn from it, and hopefully we have.

JustAThought

odyssey06 wrote: »

Is it a given the good samaritan law would have even applied?
That seems to be e.g. for scenarios where an off duty medic gives emergency assistance.

The pharmacist would not have been acting as a member of the generic public or rescue volunteer.
They were acting in their professional capacity at their place of work.

...their place of work on one of the worst streets in dublin which is full drug users and junkies constantly trying to pull one over & rob, steal or beg to get their fix. Unless you’ve worked on that street you’d have no idea of the daily violence & depravify of some of the female addicts and straight up violece and trigger rages of the WOMEN who hang around it and come out to smash the heads off each other and roar and fight up the middle of the end of that road when its time for theor fix or when their fix is needed and can’t be got. And NEVER a gaurd in sight -never. I’m not surprised at all with that level of violence and ongoing chancers and fake perscriptions and scamming and begging and threats that a high risk professional dealing with drugs and working there daily didn’t want to be a target for ongoing scams. And thats during the day.

And lets face it - in that chemists and in that area with that kind of hourly drug intimidation and scamming and stoner activity going on - not at all surprised at the chemists reaction when someone strolls in and asks for high risk drugs with no prescription and an implausible story amd no ‘patient’. . They are like every drug not only tradable but dangerous if used in the wrong medical situation or incorrectly. Then the chemist can also be sued . Seems like a catch 22 for your career and livliehood if you’re a
chemist.

And lets face it -who wouldn’t carry a their own epipen, or ring an ambulance when there is one based literally in a fire station a few minutes if that up the quays, or HAVE one if they had a severe food allergy. But then again - WHO - if they had a severe food allergy that required hospitalisation on three previous events would bring their teenager into the (chaotic and delicious) food frenzy that was Jimmy Chungs ALL YOU CAN EAT mystery food Self Service BUFFET - the dark twilight of culinary delights where people helped themselves, serving spoons or bits of food could be easily dropped into neighbouring tureens, nothing was marked up with the ingredients other than the dish name and everyone shared and forraged and dipped from each others plates. How can the
mother have been so utterly nonsensical to have brought a teenager with 3 previous food allergy hospitalisation episodes to that place. Maybe it was Jimmy Chungs she was planning to sue & her daughter paid the price. Minus 50k for emotional distress for the mother and 2 teenager sisters and a tragic funeral.

Again - where is the child protection experts investigation into any of this - there are still two teenage daughters that may need protecting. And certainly one whose ‘care’ should be investigated in this context. The nurse from Crumlin hospital testified agaInst the mother - there were medical notes to support the nurse ~ who is protecting the remaining 2 teenagers?

And why is the death of a medically vulnerable teenager not being investigated by the authorities - only the mother trying to sue a chemist when it was her that failed in her parental duty of care every step of the way- for the fourth time.

Of course if there was any kind
of proper policing in this street or it wasn’t infested with screaming, voioent, trigger raged women or angry off their head junkies or drug coma zombies mabye someone drifting in and demanding high cost high fix adrenaline pens ghat are highly tradable shouldn’t be such an everyday chOtic event. That chemist used be mine for work - you KNEW to stand back
when the junkies were in trying to scam drugs off the chemists there or grab a laptop or phone or bag or rucksack that had been put down for a second - it was a regular event - between that and the opportunists crouching at the ATM
just outside the door as the
little old ladies went out clutching their perscription drugs or re-organising their handbag with their frail vulnerability Small wonder the chemists had to put security literally on the door the problem had become so great. And small winder that when someone yet another person - with a totally implausible story came
in begging for a handout of free drugs with no sign of the teenager or perscription that they were told no. Drug begging is a common everyday ongoing event and problem in that chemists shop - not to mention stick grabbing, intimidation and straling as well as coercive begging going on a few steps away from the door.

Of course if we had a proper policing of junkies, violence, intimidation and drug use it might have been a different story - but you can’t roll back 30 years of policing and drug use liberalism to make woman asking or shouting for free drugs on O’Connell St an unusual or notable event.

sekond

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."[/I]

This is the bit I find completely unbelievable. One of my children had dairy and egg allergies that they have since grown out of. I was told to always have anti-histamine with me/whoever had responsibility for the child, and if she had a reaction and the anti-histamine didn't start to work within 5 minutes to seek immediate medical attention. And she wasn't deemed severe enough to require an epipen.

I only forgot the anti-histamine once - typically the day a cafe made a mistake on the ingredients of a muffin and her lips started to swell. Pharmacy next door couldn't dispense anything as she was under two at the time, but called the GP who met me at the door of the surgery with anti-histamine, and adrenaline at the ready. Longest 10 minute drive of my life. I never forgot the anti histamine again. I can't imagine having had 3 hospital trips and then still forgetting the medication. Nearly 5 years after my daughter was decelared to be allergy free, I still make sure I have anti histamine in the house and in my handbag.

JustAThought

Don’t worry - probably some loser smelling of piss and wondering why the world is against him amd fighting everyone who dosn’t hand out drugs on demand because he can’t see that the world - and O’connell street - is a more dangerous and complex place than he can imagine. But is happy to try and ruin someones life because it will make him/her feel better. Let him go - not worth it.