Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know how the Irish medical system works, but if you give a medication that requires a prescription without a prescription in the United States, you will be facing serious consequences.
I'd rather face those serious consequences than watch a girl die in front of me.
And serious consequences are often relaxed or disregarded in the face of emergency situations, especially when the breach benefits someone and harms no one.
I cannot believe people are blaming the pharmacist, actually by looking at who is blaming them I can. There is only 1 person to blame in this and blame lies solely on the mother. Not only did she not carry what could have saved her daughters life, but instead of going to the ER or calling 911, she chose to go to the pharmacist knowing full well that they cannot give meds without a prescription.
I cannot believe people are blaming the pharmacist, actually by looking at who is blaming them I can. There is only 1 person to blame in this and blame lies solely on the mother. Not only did she not carry what could have saved her daughters life, but instead of going to the ER or calling 911, she chose to go to the pharmacist knowing full well that they cannot give meds without a prescription.
Some of the blame lies with the girl herself too. 14 is old enough to realize the danger of your medical condition, make sure you have your EpiPen with you, and read allergy signs at buffets.
I'd rather face those serious consequences than watch a girl die in front of me.
And serious consequences are often relaxed or disregarded in the face of emergency situations, especially when the breach benefits someone and harms no one.
Would you be willing to lose your job and license if it turned out to be a sting operation because some corporations do it all the time as a test. And lets not forget, just like booze, you can get arrested for giving meds out without a prescription. Stings happen all the time.
Would you be willing to lose your job and license if it turned out to be a sting operation because some corporations do it all the time as a test. And lets not forget, just like booze, you can get arrested for giving meds out without a prescription. Stings happen all the time.
Yes, I would be.
And I would hope if the state set up a sting in which they had a child pretending to die right in front of a pharmacist who had access to the drug that could save her life in order to to try and "get him" would enrage the public.
I'd rather face those serious consequences than watch a girl die in front of me.
And serious consequences are often relaxed or disregarded in the face of emergency situations, especially when the breach benefits someone and harms no one.
You've proven once again that your posts should not be taken seriously. The pharmacist would be liable for negligence had he handed over that medication without a prescription. That you for proving my point.
I think more people need to actually read the article, especially the end where the mother asked "how can a peanut kill a child?" Is she serious, did she not even understand her own daughters allergies and how serious they were? Where the hell are her priorities? She had enough time to drive to the pharmacy but not call 911 when she realized she forgot her daughters meds? She probably didn't even have a prescription for it and if she did, why leave it at home?
You've proven once again that your posts should not be taken seriously. The pharmacist would be liable for negligence had he handed over that medication without a prescription. That you for proving my point.
Sure, he'd possibly be liable for negligence if he handed it over and it cased harm to her. Although a jury could very easily find that his comparative proportion of fault was small, in which case he most likely wouldn't be liable (in most common law jurisdictions, if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault, she can't recover from a negligent defendant). Even if a jury found him more than 50% at fault, he could argue the sudden emergency defense and be found not liable.
If it helped her, however, then he in no way would be liable for negligence since there would be no negligence.
I think more people need to actually read the article, especially the end where the mother asked "how can a peanut kill a child?" Is she serious, did she not even understand her own daughters allergies and how serious they were? Where the hell are her priorities? She had enough time to drive to the pharmacy but not call 911 when she realized she forgot her daughters meds? She probably didn't even have a prescription for it and if she did, why leave it at home?
I'd rather face those serious consequences than watch a girl die in front of me.
I have seen no claim that the girl went into the shop or that the girl died in front of the pharmacist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
