Sued for doing the legal thing?

KaneToad

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.

I couldn't disagree more. Based on the reported facts that I read, I think the pharmacist acted rationally & professionally. I'm not a pharmacist but I feel like I would have done exactly the same. I would not be feeling guilty after the tragic outcome of the events.

If I was fully convinced that there was a child who would die without my dispensing an epi pen, I would do it. I doubt the pharmacist would think differently.

As others have stated, it appears the seriousness of the situation was not apparent to all involved. A very sad event. Hopefully won't happen again.

radia

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.

I'll link rather than quote my previous post because it's long, as I was trying to be as fair as possible to both sides. But please read it and maybe you'll change your view. The gist of it is that Mrs Sloan didn't realise the danger her daughter was in and didn't communicate any sense of urgency to the pharmacist. She asked for an Epipen, was asked whether she had a prescription, said no, and was told she needed one. She didn't indicate it was for someone other than herself, so the pharmacist would have been looking at someone who seemed completely fine. And she wasn't that pushed when she was refused because she still didn't realise the danger - she just left the pharmacy calmly and went back to Emma. The pharmacist did act as a reasonable person would, and this was the finding at his fitness to practise hearing.

Should she - and Emma, who after all was 14 - have realised the danger (and avoided it in the first place by carrying an Epipen at all times and avoiding risky food situations)? In my view, undoubtedly yes. But Emma had been lucky on the 3 previous occasions and unfortunately they'd not learned from them; on the contrary they'd lulled them into a false sense of security that the worst that would happen would be a bit of lip swelling. I don't believe that across three separate occasions nobody had told them of the risks or how to use an Epipen. Sadly, some people evaluate risk by placing more weight on anecdote and personal experience than on what they perceive as theoretical or more abstract information. The advice that I'm sure they were given did not register with them in any meaningful way and they disregarded the risks and proceeded as they had done before. And on the fourth occasion they weren't that lucky.

The pharmacist could have asked Mrs Sloan more questions - including whether it was for herself. But he was faced with someone asking for a potentially abusable medicine who didn't seem to need it, and didn't seem to mind greatly when refused it. (She went out of the pharmacy calmly without pressing the matter at the time, happy enough just to head on to Temple Street, which wasn't that far away.) And the pharmacost had advised calling an ambulance and going to A&E if there was an allergic reaction. All this in the context of a practice environment where he would have been faced daily with chancers seeking medicines they shouldn't get.

I respect Mrs Sloan's campaign to make Epipens more widely available. It has done good.

I can even just about believe that she's convinced herself she was never told about the risks, when in fact they just didn't sink in. Not everybody has a good understanding of health. Not everybody evaluates risk properly - even with repeated warnings.

But I'm appalled by her trying to blame the pharmacist for her daughter's death and seeking to rewrite the interaction with him. I understand that she needs it not to have been her fault or Emma's fault. But it should be enough to say they never realized the danger until it was too late (3 previous times only lip swelling before Epipen, and initial symptoms this time were lip tingling), and to campaign for better public awareness and availability. What was already a tragic situation has been made far worse for more people.

JustAThought

radia wrote: »

I'll link rather than quote my previous post because it's long, as I was trying to be as fair as possible to both sides. But please read it and maybe you'll change your view. The gist of it is that Mrs Sloan didn't realise the danger her daughter was in and didn't communicate any sense of urgency to the pharmacist. She asked for an Epipen, was asked whether she had a prescription, said no, and was told she needed one. She didn't indicate it was for someone other than herself, so the pharmacist would have been looking at someone who seemed completely fine. And she wasn't that pushed when she was refused because she still didn't realise the danger - she just left the pharmacy calmly and went back to Emma. The pharmacist did act as a reasonable person would, and this was the finding at his fitness to practise hearing.

Should she - and Emma, who after all was 14 - have realised the danger (and avoided it in the first place by carrying an Epipen at all times and avoiding risky food situations)? In my view, undoubtedly yes. But Emma had been lucky on the 3 previous occasions and unfortunately they'd not learned from them; on the contrary they'd lulled them into a false sense of security that the worst that would happen would be a bit of lip swelling. I don't believe that across three separate occasions nobody had told them of the risks or how to use an Epipen. Sadly, some people evaluate risk by placing more weight on anecdote and personal experience than on what they perceive as theoretical or more abstract information. The advice that I'm sure they were given did not register with them in any meaningful way and they disregarded the risks and proceeded as they had done before. And on the fourth occasion they weren't that lucky.

The pharmacist could have asked Mrs Sloan more questions - including whether it was for herself. But he was faced with someone asking for a potentially abusable medicine who didn't seem to need it, and didn't seem to mind greatly when refused it. (She went out of the pharmacy calmly without pressing the matter at the time, happy enough just to head on to Temple Street, which wasn't that far away.) And the pharmacost had advised calling an ambulance and going to A&E if there was an allergic reaction. All this in the context of a practice environment where he would have been faced daily with chancers seeking medicines they shouldn't get.

I respect Mrs Sloan's campaign to make Epipens more widely available. It has done good.

I can even just about believe that she's convinced herself she was never told about the risks, when in fact they just didn't sink in. Not everybody has a good understanding of health. Not everybody evaluates risk properly - even with repeated warnings.

But I'm appalled by her trying to blame the pharmacist for her daughter's death and seeking to rewrite the interaction with him. I understand that she needs it not to have been her fault or Emma's fault. But it should be enough to say they never realized the danger until it was too late (3 previous times only lip swelling before Epipen, and initial symptoms this time were lip tingling), and to campaign for better public awareness and availability. What was already a tragic situation has been made far worse for more people.

The nurse in Crumlin came out against her and specifically recounted that she had given her instruction in the importance of epipens and how to use them. Seems three times to take a chance on her daughters life wasn’t enough opportunities for her to learn.

Sure - playing victim and dragging around schools telling her story may make her feel better or do some good or get the sympathy vote for emotional distress in court but the bottom line is that at the same time she was trying to destroy a mans life and livliehood because of her own repeated failures and because of her own failures as a mother despite repeated medical emergencies of the exact same
type and that she is directly responsible for the death of her own teenage daughter. Not some stranger, not the nurse, not her other daughters, not the buffet chinese reataurant.

No doubt it will take a blaming of everyone else around her for that to sink in and nobody is doubting that it is a bitter ending for them all . But to try and destroy a mans life and livliehood for what was her fourth personal medical failure and her absolute fail in her duty of care as a parent don’t paint in her any kind of favourable light. No doubt if the daughter had lived there would have been court cases up the wazoo and big handouts left and right for emotional distress - who knows - but at the end of the day what was a teenager with a severe peanut allergy doing in a chinese buffet eating satay sauce and feeding from troughs of self service food while her mother allowed and presided over it? Screaming blame at everybody else might make her feel
better about her lifelong ‘care’ choices for her deceased daughter but dosn’t paint her in any kind of more favourable light. And the chemist was found to be entirely not to blame.

Who petitions for the deceased teenager? Who looks to see where the actual fault is and prosecutes the person in charge - the mother. Fourth severe medical event and no epipen, no perscription, no care over her welfare taken. Where is Tulsa in this - a medically vulnerable child with a history of these failures by the mother has died. Who is prosecuting on behalf of the deceased teenager?

SupaCat95

sekond wrote: »

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.

This sounds more like the steps of an informed parent and an educated child. Even when a mistake was made, immediate steps were taken and the danger was acknowledged immediately. Much more believable story!

SupaCat95

stoneill wrote: »

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.

The situation was well documented. There are video cameras everywhere in Dublin, there were receipts and time stamps, phone calls or lack there of documented and presented as evidence. If you didnt learn the first three times, you arent going to learn the fourth time.

SupaCat95

SupaCat95 wrote: »

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.....

It means that he had the impending court case and the prospect of being shamed in the national press and blamed on the killing of a 14 year old hanging over his head for 2+ years...........Imagine the stress of all that. Imagine the amount of second-guessing he's had to do. Imagine how many times junkies and other chancers have wandered into that chemist in the 8 years since demanding drugs for someone dying around the corner, knowing that this place is a soft touch after the poor girl died.

You're ignoring the fact that simple rules WERE followed. No scrip = no medication. You cannot get any more simple than that.

stoneill wrote: »

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.

a) We do know the exact circumstances. This girl had multiple reactions and had to get an epipen on at least three occasions previously. Her mother pretended that she didn't know how serious the condition was, despite having to go to the hospital multiple times where she would have been informed. She also chose to go to somewhere famous for nuts in their dishes and sauces, a place that has a buffet style setting where multiple dishes sit beside each other and cross contamination is extremely likely. She had no epipen She had no backup prescription. She never called and ambulance. She stopped on the way to the hospital to give money to a beggar.

b) Nobody wanted this to happen, alright, but that doesn't mean nobody is to blame. There is blame to be shared alright, and the vast, vast, VAST majority is on the mother's shoulders.

c) Why should society learn from this? What is wrong with society that this happened? Why is the onus on everybody to prevent this from happening while you let the clearly negligent parent away scot free without any chastisement?

The bottom line is the mother was unaware of how serious the condition was and also unaware of what precautions she should take to mitigate against any attack that arose. If this was the first time this happened, then you might be able to cut her some slack. But it wasn't. It was the fourth time (at least) and she still managed to make so many mistakes that her daughter died horrifically lying in the gutter on the mankiest street in the country. I can understand why she's trying to point the finger at everyone else (the nurse, the hospital, the pharmacist...), because the reality of accepting what she did would drive anybody over the edge.

I cannot begin to fathom the level of sheer ignorance in willfully being ignorant of a potentially life threatening illness, despite having numerous close calls. If I deliberately ignored the fatal consequences of my actions and the worst possible happened, I'd be blaming everyone else also.

A disgusting human being, who killed her own daughter and attempted to put someone out of business / potentially send them to jail to cover her own mistakes. I hope she chokes on the 50 grand.

Jaysci20

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.

You are one ignorant gob$hite. He is guilty of nothing, he was and is a reasonable person who was not given the proper facts of the case.

hullaballoo

Moderator: Although the topic is clearly of general interest, there is a dearth of anything approaching legal discussion in this thread.