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.
This. This is why I don't go to certain restaurants due to my food allergy: cross-contamination concerns.
I myself do not currently carry an EpiPen as I manage my allergy through careful label-reading in supermarkets and careful restaurant selections. However if I did fall victim to my own allergy it would be my fault for not carrying an EpiPen. I realize and accept that.
If I was allergic to peanuts or tree nuts I would always carry an EpiPen, no doubt about it. Those allergies are usually more severe and the risk of cross-contamination is much higher.
Scientists should know what it is that causes such shocking allergic reactions with peanuts and or tree nuts, but they don't - or, do they?
FYI, 30 states here in the US let schools stock EpiPens and allow school staff to administer them without prescriptions should a kid have a severe allergic reaction (4 of the 30 states mandate it).
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?
l'll give grieving parents a pass on things they say, but it is telling that she didn't seem aware of the deadly consequences - and made her dying daughter walk the equivalent of at least 1/2 a football field downtown instead of calling for help immediately.
FYI, 30 states here in the US let schools stock EpiPens and allow school staff to administer them without prescriptions should a kid have a severe allergic reaction (4 of the 30 states mandate it).
Well, how do you think this makes pharmacists feel?
The schools obviously obtained the EpiPens without a prescription.
The Pharmacist didn't kill her. She didn't have a prescription for an EpiPen. How could the Pharmacist diagnose if she was in Anphylactic Shock or not? You don't just give out EpiPens to anyone who says they need one. I'll take some Morphine & Oxycontin while you're back there Mr Pharmacist.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trlhiker
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
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.
would you also take the chance of losing your house, car, bank accounts, retirement accounts, and every other asset you ever had if you gave out the epi pen and the girl didnt recover?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
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.
you are relying too much on the quality of the average jury in this country. sorry but i have been on jury duty in the past, and the attitude of most jurors is that they dont want to be there, and chances are that after the prosecution or plaintiff has finished their case, most of them have already made up their minds. the rest of the jury pool that doesnt want to be there is generally too stupid or too disinterested to understand what is going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
FYI, 30 states here in the US let schools stock EpiPens and allow school staff to administer them without prescriptions should a kid have a severe allergic reaction (4 of the 30 states mandate it).
and how many of those schools have a school nurse that dispenses those epi pens? i would venture to say that pretty much all of them do.
This could have just as easily happened here in the US. One of the problems is that almost all medicine for asthma is only available by prescription. Here in the US though its worse than Ireland. People have to pay as much as 3x as much for prescription medicine. Stuff like this should be available over the counter. The Tea Party types though are oblivious to the cost of medicine though thanks to Medicare. Any attempt to control the cost of medicine is socialism and that bad...very bad.
Does anyone really think the Tea Party types want to lower the cost of health care or make it more accessible? Not on their Medicare supported gubbermint lives...lol
This is the Tea Party's fault ? I don't even like the Tea Party & I know your post is nonsense. Here's how it actually works. Big Pharma spends more on lobbying than they do on R/D. In fact they spend more on lobbying than Big Oil, the Banks or the Military Industrial Complex. Let that sink in a minute.....What they do is buy/lobby our Congressmen (Yes even and especially YOUR Democratic congressmen!!) and have them grant an Oligopoly to a select few Corporations (i.e. the ones who pay off the Congressmen via lobbyist money) who then price fix since no other companies are legally allowed to sell these meds. Then they have their employees in Congress pass laws making it illegal to buy our meds outside of the United States via the Free Market system as well. That's why a pill that costs .05 in Pakistan, costs .10 in India, costs .50 In Panama, costs 1.00 in Costa Rica, costs 5.00 in Canada and 20.00 in the United States. This is the reality of "Government Regulation" and this is the reality of the Government "controlling the cost of medicine".
Your solution is to take money away from the already burdened Middle Class (because it's a Progressive fairy tale that the uber wealthy will be paying for this) and force the poor to buy Insurance with it. My solution would be to let people buy their meds (the exact same meds, produced by the exact same companies btw)at .05 from Pakistan and Middle Class could keep their money.
FYI, 30 states here in the US let schools stock EpiPens and allow school staff to administer them without prescriptions should a kid have a severe allergic reaction (4 of the 30 states mandate it).
This is a good thing and common sense imo. I'm sure they don't allow just anyone on the school staff to administer them though. It's probably a safe bet that it's the school nurse and at the very least anyone who may possibly administer an EpiPen has been trained on the symptoms of Anylphalactic Shock and the contraindications of an EpiPen.
would you also take the chance of losing your house, car, bank accounts, retirement accounts, and every other asset you ever had if you gave out the epi pen and the girl didnt recover?
you are relying too much on the quality of the average jury in this country. sorry but i have been on jury duty in the past, and the attitude of most jurors is that they dont want to be there, and chances are that after the prosecution or plaintiff has finished their case, most of them have already made up their minds. the rest of the jury pool that doesnt want to be there is generally too stupid or too disinterested to understand what is going on.
and how many of those schools have a school nurse that dispenses those epi pens? i would venture to say that pretty much all of them do.
First of all, an EpiPen causing severe harm to anyone is very, very unlikely - and it's an almost certainty any pharmacists knows that. It's also a certainty that that any pharmacist knows how to properly administer an EpiPen. It's also a nearly certain that any pharmacist can recognize a severe allergic reaction.
Not to mention in this case, the mother was telling the pharmacist that her daughter was severely allergic to nuts, that she just at nuts next door at the Asian buffet, that she was having a severe allergic reaction, and that she needed use of an EpiPen. This would also indicate to me the mother knows what's happening to her daughter, and most likely just forgot to go out with her properly prescribed EpiPen.
Given all those circumstance, my judgement would be to hand the EpiPen over to the mom and then go with her to make sure she administered it property.
And also, if against all odds the EpiPen did cause harm to this girl, it would be a pretty heartless person to sue the man since it was you begging for what you (and a reasonable person) considered to be lifesaving tools.
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.
? I don't even like the Tea Party & I know your post is nonsense. Here's how it actually works. Big Pharma spends more on lobbying than they do on R/D. In fact they spend more on lobbying than Big Oil, the Banks or the Military Industrial Complex. Let that sink in a minute.....What they do is buy/lobby our Congressmen (Yes even and especially YOUR Democratic congressmen!!) and have them grant an Oligopoly to a select few Corporations (i.e. the ones who pay off the Congressmen via lobbyist money) who then price fix since no other companies are legally allowed to sell these meds. Then they have their employees in Congress pass laws making it illegal to buy our meds outside of the United States via the Free Market system as well. That's why a pill that costs .05 in Pakistan, costs .10 in India, costs .50 In Panama, costs 1.00 in Costa Rica, costs 5.00 in Canada and 20.00 in the United States. This is the reality of "Government Regulation" and this is the reality of the Government "controlling the cost of medicine".