A Pharmacist Obligation to Warn - Coursework Example

Greater Knowledge, Greater Responsibility, Greater Care There is nothing wrong with giving a piece of advice, and so with giving one’s self to ity. It’s sad how unfortunate things have to happen first before people take any action. And losing one’s health to the things which are supposed to make him feel better is sad indeed, not to mention ironic. And so this is why one cannot but feel empathy to a person like George Lasley who suffered addiction and depression and its consequences because of the long-term use of two medicines. But of course, we look into the case and realize that that is certainly not all. We also realize that he isn’t the only unfortunate soul, that he isn’t the only one deserving of our understanding. George Lasley trusted his Dr. William K. Helm. And it’s basically because of the first word that comes before his name: doctor. He also trusted his pharmacy, Shrake’s. Giving someone’s trust to names which the words doctor and pharmacy are attached is a good thing. Sadly, Mr. Lasley finds out that these words are not always synonymous with the word trust or trustworthy. And when that happens, we know that it’s just bad. But the question is, “What really made it bad?” The Story In 1994, the Court of Appeals of Arizona sided with Mr. Lasley in its case filed against Shrake’s. The court said that the pharmacy failed in its duty to warn the customer of the adverse effects of the long-term use of the drugs prescribed to him by his doctor. The pharmacy, of course, counters by saying that no duty exists, nor a duty to keep track of the customer’s dependence on a drug prescribed by a physician. However, the court favors Mr. Lasley’s party because of its stand: the standard of care applicable to pharmacists includes the duty to warn a consumer about the addicting effects of a prescription drug and the bad effects of its long-term use. Between the Lines Lines are there for a lot of reasons. One good example is the lines that divide the lanes of a highway. They separate the fast lanes from the slow ones, and in some places, the lanes going north and those going south. In such scenarios, the line or lines, though it be just paint, are so important that crossing them could mean the loss of many lives. And respecting that is certainly not a terrible trait. And speaking of lines, there is a definite and defining one between a physician and a pharmacist. Both characters know, and the general populace as well, that the former title is much heavier than that the latter. Doctors are called doctors and not pharmacists because they are the ones who are primarily responsible in treating patients. It is the tests they conduct, the decisions they make that are of grave importance to a patient’s recovery. And a pharmacist’s compliance to that is but vital. Reverse this and “grave” is most likely a word that the two will deal with when the consequences of their actions finally come. In an unfortunate event in Victoria, Australia, a doctor seeks the advice of a pharmacist and a girl ends up dead after a party. The pharmacist gave the wrong advice to the doctor who was asking about the proper dosage of a cocaine mouthwash for a patient experiencing pain after a tonsillectomy; the former gave a formulation ten times more potent than that given to cancer patients. (Ming, “A Duty to…”) Of course, this is one incident and a doctor seeking the advice of a pharmacist is not a crime. In fact, the best thing that a man can do when he is uncertain is to ask someone who knows a lot about it. But still, the permission for the patient to use a drug and for the pharmacist to give it still lies on the doctor. If we think about it, a big mistake was the pharmacist’s. Ensuring the proper dosage by asking a pharmacist higher in rank or more knowledgeable than him was not done. But the grave error here was really the doctor’s. For one thing, cocaine is a controlled drug. And who should better to know and properly prescribe it than the doctor? Just as in the example above, codeine is a controlled drug. (Cheng, “The pharmacist…”) Dr. Helm was Mr. Lasley’s attending physician; he was the one who was supposed to know or be certain what the patient needed, right down to the last milligram. And Shrake’s giving in to what the doctor ordered should have been recognized by the court as a careful act of obedience and fell under the standard of care that a pharmacist or pharmacy should have. The fact that each of the seven billion people here on earth is unique, each having circumstances that are specific only to his one-of-a-kind self is enough reason why patients need a supervising physician. As Asa Hutchinson, the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration said in his speech to the American Pain Society in Baltimore, Maryland, “Im here to tell you that we trust your judgment. You know your patients. The DEA does not intend to play the role of doctor. Only a physician has the information and knowledge necessary to decide what is appropriate for the management of pain in a particular situation. The DEA is not here to dictate that to you.” (“DEA and Doctors…”, 2002) This was also the point of other courts that had the same case as the Court of Appeals of Arizona. They reasoned that a pharmacist’s warning could interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. But more importantly, it’s because of the pharmacist’s limited knowledge about the details of a patient’s sickness and the doctor’s substantial understanding of it that the duty to warn a patient was not needed. We’re not saying that pharmacists should be just like puppets or robots. But “Hey,” nothing’s wrong with doing exactly what one is being told so long as the one telling that person knows what he or she is doing. Of course, in every rule there is an exception. And it’s because when people care that sometimes rules are broken. I remember a story of my friend when his cousin, who was a nurse, successfully delivered a baby outside the premises of a hospital because certain circumstances forced him to do so. Someone was in trouble and he had the knowledge, the power, to do something about it. And he did, and the mother and child are thankful to him to this day. But of course, one wrong move and the story above would have turned from something that is totally opposite inspiring and heroic. And that was exactly what the duty that the pharmacy was doing, it was being careful and sensible. It knew that the patient who they were supplying medicine to was in the hands of a person who knows exactly what he is doing. Conclusion Doctors are certainly not exempted from committing mistakes. But basing on the training and scope of knowledge they took, nearly a hundred percent of the responsibility to the patient is upon their shoulders. If the pharmacist does fail to make sure if the patient or doctor is not properly using the prescribed medication according to the manufacturer’s instructions it will never be as big a part as the one who gave the prescription in the first place. Giving an advice or a reminder to a fellow human being out of care and compassion is indeed human. And so is acting according to what one thinks is rightful and due. Works Cited Cheng, Maria. “The pharmacist will see you now”. LAtimes.com. April 6, 2008. October 27, 2008. < http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/06/world/fg-phys6plr> Hutchinson, Asa. "DEA and Doctors: Cooperation for the Public Good". USdoj.gov. March 14, 2002. October 27, 2008. Ming, Kevin Lau Yung. A Duty to Care: Pharmacists’ Negligence: Implications for Pharmacists and Lessons Arising. 2003. Allied Health Professions. October 27, 2008. < http://www.cbs.curtin.edu.au/files/Vol_5_Article_2_Kelvin_Lau1.pdf> Read More