nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

The Iron Giant

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.

The Iron Giant

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.

The Iron Giant

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:

[Deleted User]

The LAST thing a distraught mother would be doing is making anything "clear".

I feel for her and it's a massive tragedy that a child died, but they cannot go around handing prescription meds over the counter because someone comes in frantically shouting for them.
If someone went in there demanding the wrong drug because they were a "distraught mother" and the child died as a result of being given the wrong drug, you bet the pharmacist would be lynched. Because they're a professional with a responsibility over potentially dangerous meds. Can't have it both ways.

Hindsight is wonderful to us sitting here who knew everything, but this pharmacist did not. He didn't know who it was for and that they were nearby.

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 if she didn't even know how to use it what was she going to do with it? Did she even know what she was asking for?
Go to A&E was exactly the right response

Hitchens

horrible situation for all concerned, especially for the young girl's mother and family, but I would say that the pharmacist and his staff will not get over this tragedy for a long time, if ever

KomradeBishop

Manufactured Miracle wrote: »

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.

That's complete nonsense. People are being utterly ridiculous in inventing justifications for the pharmacists inaction.

It would take bugger-all effort for him to grab an epi pen, walk out of the damn shop, look at the girl in anaphylactic shock - to verify for himself - and hand the pen over...

Nobody has a counter to this, other than "well, the laws the law..." - which is no excuse in a circumstance like this, as the chances of him encountering legal action for that, are practically nonexistant.

Ursus Horribilis

I think this is a desperately tragic story that has no winners. I still think it's very odd that this poor unfortunate girl didn't know she shouldn't have eaten what she did. I hate to go down the road of victim blaming here but why was she not more careful about what she was eating? I've a friend whose 13/14 year old son has a nut allergy. The lad is very on the ball about what foods contain nuts and he's vigilant about what he eats. I've got asthma and never leave home without an inhaler on me. I also know what triggers an attack and avoid these. When I was a kid, my mum looked out for me and made sure I had my inhaler and avoided the triggers. I'd have thought that was what most people did?

Maybe this girl's mum was frozen and didn't know what to do but I think if I was in her shoes I'd have brought her straight into the pharmacy and raised hell until someone produced an epipen. I'd nearly have vaulted over the counter myself to get one. It sounds like there was a communication breakdown here.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

LexieOnRale wrote: »

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.

Could he not have insisted the child was brought to the pharmacy and a doctor and ambulance called.
I understand he could not give the epipen to her or administering it, but why not be more proactive and behave like the highly qualified healthcare professional he is.

Kurtosis

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.

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.

Have you actually read any of the recent coverage before jumping in to comment? The mother in this case told the hearing that she did not realise how severe an allergic reaction could be and had not been instructed on how to use an adrenaline pen. Also, I haven't heard adherence to the law being used as an excuse/defence in this case, though if you have evidence it has been I am happy to admit I am wrong on this.

This tragic event seems to have resulted from a lack of communication or miscommunication on the day. At least new legislation is being introduced to make emergency medicines more widely available and put their use on more sound legal footing.

Paramite Pie

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?

I believe that was common in that area or at least when the story first broke I remember other pharmacists in the media saying you had regularly 'chancers' in hysterics claiming it was an emergency...

Although I do believe protecting pharmacists in 'good samaritan' cases - also what happens if they give medication that someone reacts to -- making things worse or even killing them? People asking for help can sell you down the river first change they get.

The Iron Giant

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's complete nonsense. People are being utterly ridiculous in inventing justifications for the pharmacists inaction.

It would take bugger-all effort for him to grab an epi pen, walk out of the damn shop, look at the girl in anaphylactic shock - to verify for himself - and hand the pen over...

Nobody has a counter to this, other than "well, the laws the law..." - which is no excuse in a circumstance like this, as the chances of him encountering legal action for that, are practically nonexistant.

There is a counter. The pharmacist said that at no point was it made known to him that it was for the daughter.

A fact that most people berating the pharmacist seem to just be glossing over.

I could sit outside a hospital with someone bleeding to death in the car, but if I don't make it known that they're there, it's hardly the hospitals fault for not rushing out.

dr.fuzzenstein

bluewolf wrote: »

The LAST thing a distraught mother would be doing is making anything "clear".

I feel for her and it's a massive tragedy that a child died, but they cannot go around handing prescription meds over the counter because someone comes in frantically shouting for them.
If someone went in there demanding the wrong drug because they were a "distraught mother" and the child died as a result of being given the wrong drug, you bet the pharmacist would be lynched. Because they're a professional with a responsibility over potentially dangerous meds. Can't have it both ways.
Hindsight is wonderful to us sitting here who knew everything, but this pharmacist did not.

You can be absolutely sure as a pharmacist he would have first aid training.
He could have said "let me have a look", assessed the situation and maybe helped. He didn't for the simple reason that he didn't want to leave himself open for any charges should anything go wrong.
He could have helped and chose not to.
When it comes to medical emergencies there is no "sorry, not my job" for any healthcare professional.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Was there an ambulance called?