Pharmacist cleared of charge of being unfit to practice in Emma Sloan case

Stheno · 10-12-2015 12:12AM

Odus fell down wrote: »

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.

From everything being reported, it seems that neither the mother nor the child genuinely realised how serious the reaction could be. One of the articles quoted the mother as thinking that the worst it would be was that her daughter would be in Temple Street over Christmas.

The Iron Giant · 10-12-2015 12:13AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

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.

Mate, are you even reading the article??

It was accepted that at no point was he made aware that it was for the daughter who was outside just that it was for 'someone'.

Was he supposed to use his psychic powers to assume it was for someone he wasn't made aware of?

Azalea · 10-12-2015 12:13AM

jimgoose wrote: »

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.

How has "everyone" gone "Rightly so"?

What has Ireland got to do with this? Do people *genuinely* think this could not happen in other societies?

The pharmacist did not want her to die - nobody wanted her to die. Nobody is glad she is dead - ffs. I think, on the face of it, the pharmacist should have administered the epi-pen, but I wasn't there and I am not a pharmacist - not trained in the profession, not working in the profession five days a week from morning until evening, and in O'Connell Street, which is likely to be one of the most - if not the most - challenging places to be a pharmacist in this country.
And we certainly don't know that the pharmacist said "Sorry, can't do it - against the rules, next!" People are resorting to making up awful bullsh-t here. No doubt the pharmacist was panicking like mad. It has been said the pharmacist was not entirely aware of the gravity of the situation - perhaps had he seen the girl it would have made a difference.

And to make mention of the fact that she did not have an epi-pen at a restaurant that serves dishes containing nuts when aware of her condition... is not victim-blaming. To omit it would be not giving the full picture. It needs to be said in order to illustrate how this tragedy - that nobody wanted - is not entirely the pharmacist's fault.

I wonder had an ambulance been called - if it hadn't, I don't understand why.

The Iron Giant · 10-12-2015 12:15AM

Azalea wrote: »

How has "everyone" gone "Rightly so"?

What has Ireland got to do with this?

The pharmacist did not want her to die - nobody wanted her to die. Nobody is glad she is dead - ffs. I think, on the face of it, the pharmacist should have administered the epi-pen, but I wasn't there and I am not a pharmacist - not trained in the profession, not working in the profession five days a week from morning until evening, and in O'Connell Street, which is likely to be one of the most - if not the most - challenging places to be a pharmacist in this country.
And we certainly don't know that the pharmacist said "Sorry, can't do it - against the rules, next!" People are resorting to making up awful bullsh-t here. No doubt the pharmacist was panicking like mad. It has been said the pharmacist was not entirely aware of the gravity of the situation - perhaps had he seen the girl it would have made a difference.

And to make mention of the fact that she did not have an epi-pen at a restaurant that serves dishes containing nuts when aware of her condition... is not victim-blaming. To omit it would be not giving the full picture. It needs to be said in order to illustrate how this tragedy - that nobody wanted - is not entirely the pharmacist's fault.

I wonder had an ambulance been called - if it hadn't, I don't understand why.

Apparently the mother was on the way to Temple Street Hospital in the car with her daughter but stopped at the pharmacy on the way.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 10-12-2015 12:15AM

Yahir Beautiful Gunpowder wrote: »

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.

For what it's worth, I think if the child had been there and he could clearly see it was an emergency, then there would have been no issue with giving the pen. Obviously I don't know that for sure but you wouldn't leave a dog to die in the street, never mind a child. He says he didn't know it was for a child -- so it just makes me wonder. Did the mother realise it was actually as serious as it was when she was in the pharmacy?? Why had the child been hospitalised a previous 3 times for the same thing?

Calibos · 10-12-2015 12:17AM

Am I misremembering the story but wasn't it the mothers ignorance of the seriousness of a nut allergy the main problem every step of the way. Not bothering to bring an Epi-pen everywhere. Not knowing the high chance of nut contamination with Chinese food of any description. Not knowing that the Satay Dish actually ordered for the child was actually a nut based dish so it wasn't even a case of cross contamination in the kitchen. To top it all off when she went into the pharmacy to ask for an epi-pen all witnesses say she did not convey any sense of emergency to the staff. She literally said, "Yeah, my daughter is having a bit of an allergic reaction. Can you sell me an epi-pen?" "Sorry, No, you need a prescription for those." "Oh, OK, Bye"

This tragedy is the mothers fault every step of the way from beginning to end

Samaris · 10-12-2015 12:18AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

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.

You are being very ready to ascribe intentions in a situation where they are rather unlikely purely to vilify the guy. No, none of us can know his mind, but the prime response in most people IS to help. He didn't know where the girl was, who it was, if the woman had any idea what she was talking about (and bear in mind from the woman's own testimony, she -didn't-, so she was almost certainly unclear), and, as many people have pointed out before, if it turned out the girl wasn't in anaphylactic shock but rather suffering from something else, and he'd sold her an epipen against all regulations and rules, and the unnamed person somewhere out there died of a heart-attack (due to a large injection of adrenaline), that pharmacist wouldn't see the light of day again until he'd served out his sentence for being an idiot that indirectly killed someone.

Ursus Horribilis · 10-12-2015 12:19AM

Stheno wrote: »

From everything being reported, it seems that neither the mother nor the child genuinely realised how serious the reaction could be. One of the articles quoted the mother as thinking that the worst it would be was that her daughter would be in Temple Street over Christmas.

This is almost the most shocking thing about this tragedy.

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-12-2015 12:19AM

Manufactured Miracle wrote: »

Mate, are you even reading the article??

It was accepted that at no point was he made aware that it was for the daughter who was outside just that it was for 'someone'.

Was he supposed to use his psychic powers to assume it was for someone he wasn't made aware of?

Caroline Sloan seems to disagree:

“I'd like to know why the pharmacist didn't give me the pen. I told him what was happening but he said I would have to go to A&E.

You think the pharmacist isn't desperately covering his arse? He will think "there is no recording, it's her word against mine".
Do you think he would say "yes, she told me her daughter had an allergic reaction"?
And yes, there is an element of "her word against his", but I don't think for a second she wouldn't have made it clear to him what was happening.

strandroad · 10-12-2015 12:19AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

For what it's worth, I think if the child had been there and he could clearly see it was an emergency, then there would have been no issue with giving the pen. Obviously I don't know that for sure but you wouldn't leave a dog to die in the street, never mind a child. He says he didn't know it was for a child -- so it just makes me wonder. Did the mother realise it was actually as serious as it was when she was in the pharmacy?? Why had the child been hospitalised a previous 3 times for the same thing?

No she did not realise how serious it was, she thought her daughter was going to be sick but not that it was a life or death situation. Which probably affected her communication at the time.

Gatling · 10-12-2015 12:20AM

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.

Kids get beaten up in schools and other kids record and post it on social media ,
People getting battered daily on the streets and it's cheered and recorded again for social media ,
People seriously hurt in accidents and people stand and record for social media ,

And I've personally had to stand and watch a man take a heart attack and die because he was locked in behind a re enforced shop counter while waiting for specialist equipment came from across the city to break in ,
All while a person 2 minutes away had keys to access the shop but refused to come to help ,

So yeah there are decent folks out there but circumstances don't always play out how you want to or expect them to

Ellie2008 · 10-12-2015 12:20AM

Yahir Beautiful Gunpowder wrote: »

But the mother is not a healthcare professional.

Surely The question that needs answering is does the pharmacist owe a duty of care and if so to what standard.
Are pharmacists healthcare professionals or just drug vendors.

My sister has always had a peanut allergy, she has an Epipen and there is no way she d even set foot in a Chinese, not just because of the satay sauce, it's about the oils they use & that fact the food could have come into contact with nut oils or traces.

I wanted to take her to Saba and I rang to check it would be ok and they said sorry no even if she ordered a non nut dish they simply weren't prepared to guarantee it would be completely free of all nut traces. I saw a colleague have an allergic reaction to nuts in a Thai as well, luckily not as severe.

The poor mother as much as it is awful what has happened to her, and it is truly appalling and of course she doesn't "deserve it", but she took a 14 year old with a severe nut allergy to a Chinese restaurant, that is actually the cause of the reaction. The pharmacist had nothing to do with that decision. My parents knew loads about nut allergies back in the day with my sister and they didn't even have the internet neither were they medical professionals.

People talk about the rules like they are only there to protect the pharmacists, they are there to protect all of us from what might happen if someone takes medication given to them by someone who isn't a doctor hasn't carried out tests & taken a full medical history.

It's hard to know from the evidence it does seem the pharmacist might have inquired further but he didn't even have sight of the girl to see the reaction.

Blaming him helps no one, the lessons here I would think are we should educate people about nut allergies, restaurants should make it clear to customers whether the food is nut free, and the rules around pharmacists giving out Epipens and possibly other mediation should be clarified.

I'm sure he feels awful about what happened and he has his face all over the papers & threats at his work. Even if he made the wrong call he isn't principally responsible here.

smurgen · 10-12-2015 12:20AM

I'm gutted for the mother.It was all just a very unfortunate set of circumstances.they probably didn't have long to react and made a bungled attempt to take care of the situation. Totally understandable given that she didn't realise the seriousness of the daughters reaction.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 10-12-2015 12:21AM

mhge wrote: »

No she did not realise how serious it was, she thought her daughter was going to be sick but not that it was a life or death situation. Which probably affected her communication at the time.

Then she needs to accept some of the responsibility instead of try ruin another persons entire career.

KomradeBishop · 10-12-2015 12:21AM

penguin88 wrote: »

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.

Have you? Read the second article. It states after a previous allergy incident, a nurse went through allergy leaflets with them, which would have included the nurse giving epi pen instructions.

The articles also state the mother was instructed by the pharmacy to call an ambulance - how on earth could the pharmacy then be unaware of the immediate danger then?

The Iron Giant · 10-12-2015 12:21AM

Calibos wrote: »

Am I misremembering the story but wasn't it the mothers ignorance of the seriousness of a nut allergy the main problem every step of the way. Not bothering to bring an Epi-pen everywhere. Not knowing the high chance of nut contamination with Chinese food of any description. Not knowing that the Satay Dish actually ordered for the child was actually a nut based dish so it wasn't even a case of cross contamination in the kitchen. To top it all off when she went into the pharmacy to ask for an epi-pen all witnesses say she did not convey any sense of emergency to the staff. She literally said, "Yeah, my daughter is having a bit of an allergic reaction. Can you sell me an epi-pen?" "Sorry, No, you need a prescription for those." "Oh, OK, Bye"

This tragedy is the mothers fault every step of the way from beginning to end

Apparently she didn't even say my daughter. It was conveyed as 'someone' is having a reaction.

Awful for the mother to lose her daughter but having a daughter diagnosed at 5 with a severe nut allergy and then to spend 9 years claiming that she was never told how serious it could be seems slightly naive.

Samaris · 10-12-2015 12:21AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Caroline Sloan seems to disagree:

You think the pharmacist isn't desperately covering his arse? He will think "there is no recording, it's her word against mine".
Do you think he would say "yes, she told me her daughter had an allergic reaction"?
And yes, there is an element of "her word against his", but I don't think for a second she wouldn't have made it clear to him what was happening.

Except SHE DIDN'T KNOW what was happening. She had no idea of the seriousness of what was going on, by her own testimony. It's a tragic case, but I think in your drive to find a person responsible for this awful death, you're going waaay overboard.

Thelomen Toblackai · 10-12-2015 12:21AM

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.

He knew someone was in anaphylactic shock and need an Epipen. And he told them to go to the A&E.

He could have done a lot of things and was probably the most knowledgeable person involved in the entire incident, would have immediately known (assuming he knows anything about his job) that someone in immediate need of an Epipen is in serious trouble. And he basically told them to go away he can't help them.

Guy:Incognito · 10-12-2015 12:22AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

As a German I am actually disgusted to the bone by the weaselly attitude the Irish sometimes display.

.

As a German I think the pharmacist was right.

KomradeBishop · 10-12-2015 12:23AM

Manufactured Miracle wrote: »

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.

The guy knew there was an emergency, if he was suggesting calling an ambulance, so that doesn't cut it as a counter...nothing would have stopped the guy inquiring further, if he knows it's an emergency.

Peregrine · 10-12-2015 12:23AM

Under cross-examination, Ms Sloan said she had never been trained in how to use an EpiPen and she didn't recall ever being given an information leaflet about allergic reactions.

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...

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Have you? Read the second article. It states after a previous allergy incident, a nurse went through allergy leaflets with them, which would have included the nurse giving epi pen instructions.

If you don't read the article and completely contradict the facts then I will deem it as trolling.

Mod

Tigger99 · 10-12-2015 12:24AM

But even with the new legislation I don't think this would have changed the situation. According to evidence given and cctv the mother calmly left the pharmacy after asking for an epi pen for somebody she didn't specify was a child (due to the inconsistencies in her story I'm more likely to believe the pharmacist).

I had to babysit a child once that had a nut allergy. I was instructed by her parents how to use an epipen and I scrutinised everything she ate. No way in hell would I have brought her to a buffet place due to the risk of cross contamination.

The mother might have said she didn't know how serious the allergy was but evidence was given that a nurse told her.

By the way legislation is already in place for the provision of prescription medicine without a prescription in an emergency. It's in section 8(2) of the Medicinal Products regulation 2003.

The Iron Giant · 10-12-2015 12:24AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Caroline Sloan seems to disagree:

You think the pharmacist isn't desperately covering his arse? He will think "there is no recording, it's her word against mine".
Do you think he would say "yes, she told me her daughter had an allergic reaction"?
And yes, there is an element of "her word against his", but I don't think for a second she wouldn't have made it clear to him what was happening.

And you're blindly taking her side of the story because...?

Were you in the pharmacy at the time? It seems with the level of agreement with her side of the story that you must be. Because you're deeming the pharmacist an outright liar for some reason.

Skylinehead · 10-12-2015 12:25AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You think the pharmacist isn't desperately covering his arse? He will think "there is no recording, it's her word against mine".
Do you think he would say "yes, she told me her daughter had an allergic reaction"?
And yes, there is an element of "her word against his", but I don't think for a second she wouldn't have made it clear to him what was happening.

You're just making stuff up now.

osarusan · 10-12-2015 12:25AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Have you? Read the second article. It states after a previous allergy incident, a nurse went through allergy leaflets with them, which would have included the nurse giving epi pen instructions.

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.

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

ceadaoin. · 10-12-2015 12:26AM

In this day and age, everyone knows how severe nut allergies can be. I find it hard to understand how the mother didn't take it seriously. Presumably, the daughter had reactions before given that she had been diagnosed with having the allergy. It would have been explained to her how important having the medication at all times was. And to then order a peanut based sauce, well it just defies belief how ignorant this woman was.

The mother messed up big time here, and I feel for her. I don't blame her for trying to project the blame onto someone else but ultimately that is all she is doing by trying to make the pharmacist culpable.

strandroad · 10-12-2015 12:26AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The articles also state the mother was instructed by the pharmacy to call an ambulance - how on earth could the pharmacy then be unaware of the immediate danger then?

I think it said that the pharmacy advised to go to A&E to get an epipen if she needed it for someone with no prescrition. Remember that the mother was not aware of the real risk.

They said that they would have called the ambulance themselves if they knew about the situation with the daughter outside.

Guy:Incognito · 10-12-2015 12:27AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Caroline Sloan seems to disagree:

.

So why is the pharmacist automatically lying? Presumably you'll believe anything the mother said happened because it's quite clear what side you're coming down on here.

How do you know the woman was hysterical and doesnt even remember half of what she said?

I know I've witnessed a few things that a few minutes later I start to have serious doubts about what I saw and heard. eyewitnesses are often very wrong and contradictory of what happened. Two people standing watching something can have fairly different accounts of it.

haveringchick · 10-12-2015 12:27AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, good someone had to die, as long as procedure was adhered to to the letter. What a glorious country we live in. What spineless weasles we are, his hopelessly enslaved to the rules that anyone would EVER think its good a child died, as long as we obeyed the rules. This is what males this country what it is. How spineless, dickless, brainless, hopeless we are, what a bunch of hyenas.
Had that been my child I would have told the chemist I'd break a bone for every time I heard the word "no".

I don't think your aware of the circumstances surrounding this child's death
The mother of the child didn't rum into the pharmacy screaming "help help my child is dying!!!"
She was totally unaware, bizarrely, that her child was gravely ill
That's not the pharmacist fault
It's a tragedy but I'm afraid whoever bought the peanut allergic child the chicken satay is responsible

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-12-2015 12:27AM

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

He knew someone was in anaphylactic shock and need an Epipen. And he told them to go to the A&E.

He could have done a lot of things and was probably the most knowledgeable person involved in the entire incident, would have immediately known (assuming he knows anything about his job) that someone in immediate need of an Epipen is in serious trouble. And he basically told them to go away he can't help them.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

As a German I think the pharmacist was right.

I disagree and see above. He made damn sure to keep out of it, cover your arse, don't get involved, don't ask questions.
What a wonderful world we're living in.
Someone said she strolled in, asked for a pen, he said no and she said "OK, bye". In that conversation an ambulance or hospital wasn't mentioned, but it seems it was mentioned. As a German you should know that "just following orders" is not an excuse.

Pharmacist cleared of charge of being unfit to practice in Emma Sloan case

Comments