All it would have taken was an injection of adrenaline. You don't need to be in the emergency services for that. Joe Bloggs on the street can do it if they come across someone suffering an extreme allergic reaction who has an epipen and not able to administer it themselves.
Yes, I know how to do it. A friend of my daughter carries an epipen, and i'm one of a whole load of acquaintances who have been shown how to use it. That's the easy part.
However, surely the key issue is whether or not the supply of the drug is controlled or not, and whether it is the correct treatment.
In the case of my daughter's friend, a doctor has examined her and understands her condition, and has prescribed an epipen. So we know it is the correct action in the event of a bad reaction.
She carries an epipen because she has been prescribed one.
Regardless of whether the daughter was there or not, I suppose there's a basic human nature component involved as well.
If I was a pharmacist and faced with a hysterical mother asking me for help as her daughter was having an allergic reaction in the restaurant round the corner, I wouldn't think twice about grabbing some adrenaline and following the mother to her daughter so that I could help.
And it's all very well criticising the mother for not immediately phoning an ambulance but when someone is in a life-threatening situation like this, rationality is usually not top of the list.
If you're determined to blame a person who wasn't involved and ignore all the things the girl and her mother could have done to resolve or avoid THEIR problem, then you are.
Blame culture is some peoples first and most determined refuge
as for what you would do, I'm going to say you have no idea as;
you aren't informed about what happened
you dont have any actual knowledge about what a pharmacist can and cannot do,
you dont know about anaphylactic shock and
you really are not demonstrating anything that indicates you can put your prejudice aside to make a valid assessment of what you would really do.
Yes, I know how to do it. A friend of my daughter carries an epipen, and i'm one of a whole load of acquaintances who have been shown how to use it. That's the easy part.
However, surely the key issue is whether or not the supply of the drug is controlled or not, and whether it is the correct treatment.
In the case of my daughter's friend, a doctor has examined her and understands her condition, and has prescribed an epipen. So we know it is the correct action in the event of a bad reaction.
She carries an epipen because she has been prescribed one.
Yes, but in a medical emergency such as this, surely you have to rely somewhat on your instincts to ensure you are making the right judgement. It's somebody's life at the end of the day.
I find it incredible that someone with a nut allergy would order/eat Satay sauce.
I was thinking the same, surely when you have an allergy severe enough to kill you, you have a mental list of foods to avoid and when in a restaurant serving non-familier cuisine you would double check. I also think it was irresponsible of her parents to also not be carrying an epipen. The poor child was under 16 and so as her parents, they too had a responsibility to protect her.
This may sound harsh and I'm truly am not blaming them, no doubt they are replaying the incident over and over and punishing themselves for their own part in all this. I just feel going to the press to blame the pharmacist is quite unfair. They all (parents and pharmacist) will have to live with the consequences of her actions and their own. I feel for them all.
Regardless of whether the daughter was there or not, I suppose there's a basic human nature component involved as well.
If I was a pharmacist and faced with a hysterical mother asking me for help as her daughter was having an allergic reaction in the restaurant round the corner, I wouldn't think twice about grabbing a spare epipen and following the mother to her daughter so that I could help.
And it's all very well criticising the mother for not immediately phoning an ambulance but when someone is in a life-threatening situation like this, rationality is usually not top of the list.
I don't know if there are any risks in using an epipen, but if there are (and if it needs a prescription, that would be for a reason), then it would be irresponsible to administer a drug without knowing if it were appropriate.
For some reason the whole article isn't displaying properly on my phone, hence why I may have asked something that was answered in it.
Well that's fair enough. Was a general point though not aimed at specific people even though I used some examples.
Personally I feel sad for everyone involved in this, consciences will weigh heavy whether there was anything they could do or not.
Don't really think much of this rather unpleasant desire to sort people in to descending order according to blame. Mistakes happened. I don't see any of them being so excessive to be considered negligence. No one is perfect.
Regardless of whether the daughter was there or not, I suppose there's a basic human nature component involved as well.
If I was a pharmacist and faced with a hysterical mother asking me for help as her daughter was having an allergic reaction in the restaurant round the corner, I wouldn't think twice about grabbing a spare epipen and following the mother to her daughter so that I could help.
And it's all very well criticising the mother for not immediately phoning an ambulance but when someone is in a life-threatening situation like this, rationality is usually not top of the list.
I feel the same. Administering an epipen isn't difficult, plenty of non professionals know how. I'd have done ANYTHING to save the girl. Get one and administer it, it won't do any bloody harm.
My child has peanut allergy, this whole thing is awful.
If you're determined to blame a person who wasn't involved and ignore all the things the girl and her mother could have done to resolve or avoid THEIR problem, then you are.
Blame culture is some peoples first and most determined refuge
as for what you would do, I'm going to say you have no idea as;
you aren't informed about what happened
you dont have any actual knowledge about what a pharmacist can and cannot do,
you dont know about anaphylactic shock and
you really are not demonstrating anything that indicates you can put your prejudice aside to make a valid assessment of what you would really do.
I am not saying the girl or her mother were faultless here. Neither am I saying that it is the pharmacist's fault that the girl is dead.
But I can't believe that, in an establishment containing the one thing that just might have saved her life, the pharmacist didn't even try (according to the article).
As for the latter part of your post, I have no idea why you're being so bitchy. Nor do I have any idea why you feel justified to make such assumptions about me.
I can guarantee you that, if the story is as black and white as in the article and had I been in the pharmacist's shoes, I would have at least tried.
Well that's fair enough. Was a general point though not aimed at specific people even though I used some examples.
Personally I feel sad for everyone involved in this, consciences will weigh heavy whether there was anything they could do or not.
Don't really think much of this rather unpleasant desire to sort people in to descending order according to blame. Mistakes happened. I don't see any of them being so excessive to be considered negligence. No one is perfect.
So, if someone was having an asthma attack and there was tons of ventolin in the store, but it wasn't on prescription or anything, what would you do as a pharacist?
Or even if they had collapsed nearby?
What about having a heart attack? And the husband of the poor sufferer said they were out of the gnt's - let her die because it wasn't on their prescription?
I don't know if there are any risks in using an epipen, but if there are (and if it needs a prescription, that would be for a reason), then it would be irresponsible to administer a drug without knowing if it were appropriate.
you dont have any actual knowledge about what a pharmacist can and cannot do,
you dont know about anaphylactic shock and
you really are not demonstrating anything that indicates you can put your prejudice aside to make a valid assessment of what you would really do.
How do you know what he is does and does not know? Addisonian has said nothing that makes me think he doesn't know about anaphylactic shock for a start.
I feel the same. Administering an epipen isn't difficult, plenty of non professionals know how. I'd have done ANYTHING to save the girl. Get one and administer it, it won't do any bloody harm.
My child has peanut allergy, this whole thing is awful.
Surely this is the issue. If it cannot do any harm, then there would be no problem with everyone carrying one and using them willy nilly if someone appears to have a bad reaction. They needn't be restricted to pharmacists. They could be available at the corner shop.
Its a horrible and tragic story, but I don't know how anyone can blame the pharmacist. People are assuming pharmacists can administer drugs in emergency situations or can spot certain conditions and react accordingly - but I haven't seen anyone say that they categorically know this to be the case. Pharmacists aren't Doctors and can't be expected to make the sort of decisions that would be made by Doctors.
Think of it like this; a non-medical professional was demanding a prescription drug from a pharmacist who couldn't even see the person who needed the medication. Imagine if the mother - as someone who is not medically trained - had accidently requested the wrong medication and the pharmacist handed it over. The pharmacist could then have been directly responsible for a person's death, because the wrong prescription medication could potentially be deadly.
The pharmacist had no choice. Prescription drugs are dangerous and can't be handed out at the demand of any random person. This incident is tragic, but not the fault of the pharmacist.
The article even states that the family admit the restaurant correctly labelled the food as containing nuts and they missed it. They also admit that they forgot to bring their daughter's medicine with them. Again, I say this is a sad and tragic incident, but the only blame that can be laid is at the feet of the family themselves. They were the only one to make mistakes. The pharmacy can not be blamed for this, no matter how much they seem to be being treated as the whipping-boy.
I am not saying the girl or her mother were faultless here. Neither am I saying that it is the pharmacist's fault that the girl is dead.
But I can't believe that, in an establishment containing the one thing that just might have saved her life, the pharmacist didn't even try (according to the article).
As for the latter part of your post, I have no idea why you're being so bitchy. Nor do I have any idea why you feel justified to make such assumptions about me.
I can guarantee you that, if the story is as black and white as in the article and had I been in the pharmacist's shoes, I would have at least tried.
You cant guarantee anything and I've explained why. You are completely wrong and you've been untruthful above as you are contradicting what you said in your earlier post
There is no point in lying when your original view is inches away on a page
How do you know what he is does and does not know? Addisonian has said nothing that makes me think he doesn't know about anaphylactic shock for a start.
Yes they have.
You don't understand and educating you isn't my job
Yes, but in a medical emergency such as this, surely you have to rely somewhat on your instincts to ensure you are making the right judgement. It's somebody's life at the end of the day.
My daughter is very careful, she hasn't had an attack for six years and she is eighteen.
I can't stop her from not keeping her epipen on her all the time, I try. I can't make her friends think it's important, when she thinks she knows the score and won't make an issue of it.
She might need help, and I hope to god that she doesn't have to rely on someone that won't even TRY.
Surely this is the issue. If it cannot do any harm, then there would be no problem with everyone carrying one and using them willy nilly if someone appears to have a bad reaction. They needn't be restricted to pharmacists. They could be available at the corner shop.
Why the sarcasm? It won't KILL you, unless you're a heart case. And a shock could do that.
Would you leave someone to die because you couldn't make any sort of judgement in a human way?
What was the mother doing going to the chemist anyway, just call a bloody ambulance as anaphylactic shock is a medial emergence. A paramedic could have been there within minute and administered anything required.
Clearly its not a simple case of "you can inject it into anyone and its perfectly fine." If you don't know the patient, you clearly shouldn't just be handing it out to anyone for unknown use.
So if the pharmacist has not had the opportunity to check if the person in question has a heart condition, then it would be inappropriate to administer an epipen. Thanks for clearing that up.
Comments
No doubt, but if you don't know what is in your "sauce" even though it says "contain nuts" you are in trouble
Yes, I know how to do it. A friend of my daughter carries an epipen, and i'm one of a whole load of acquaintances who have been shown how to use it. That's the easy part.
However, surely the key issue is whether or not the supply of the drug is controlled or not, and whether it is the correct treatment.
In the case of my daughter's friend, a doctor has examined her and understands her condition, and has prescribed an epipen. So we know it is the correct action in the event of a bad reaction.
She carries an epipen because she has been prescribed one.
If you're determined to blame a person who wasn't involved and ignore all the things the girl and her mother could have done to resolve or avoid THEIR problem, then you are.
Blame culture is some peoples first and most determined refuge
as for what you would do, I'm going to say you have no idea as;
I was thinking the same, surely when you have an allergy severe enough to kill you, you have a mental list of foods to avoid and when in a restaurant serving non-familier cuisine you would double check. I also think it was irresponsible of her parents to also not be carrying an epipen. The poor child was under 16 and so as her parents, they too had a responsibility to protect her.
This may sound harsh and I'm truly am not blaming them, no doubt they are replaying the incident over and over and punishing themselves for their own part in all this. I just feel going to the press to blame the pharmacist is quite unfair. They all (parents and pharmacist) will have to live with the consequences of her actions and their own. I feel for them all.
Someone collapses you dial 999 and an ambulance (eventually) turns up with trained personal and (hopefully) the correct medication.
ETA: I guess the ambulance were on their way. Makes you want someone in the pharmacy to have some form of paramedic training.
I don't know if there are any risks in using an epipen, but if there are (and if it needs a prescription, that would be for a reason), then it would be irresponsible to administer a drug without knowing if it were appropriate.
Well that's fair enough. Was a general point though not aimed at specific people even though I used some examples.
Personally I feel sad for everyone involved in this, consciences will weigh heavy whether there was anything they could do or not.
Don't really think much of this rather unpleasant desire to sort people in to descending order according to blame. Mistakes happened. I don't see any of them being so excessive to be considered negligence. No one is perfect.
I feel the same. Administering an epipen isn't difficult, plenty of non professionals know how. I'd have done ANYTHING to save the girl. Get one and administer it, it won't do any bloody harm.
My child has peanut allergy, this whole thing is awful.
But I can't believe that, in an establishment containing the one thing that just might have saved her life, the pharmacist didn't even try (according to the article).
As for the latter part of your post, I have no idea why you're being so bitchy. Nor do I have any idea why you feel justified to make such assumptions about me.
I can guarantee you that, if the story is as black and white as in the article and had I been in the pharmacist's shoes, I would have at least tried.
So, if someone was having an asthma attack and there was tons of ventolin in the store, but it wasn't on prescription or anything, what would you do as a pharacist?
Or even if they had collapsed nearby?
What about having a heart attack? And the husband of the poor sufferer said they were out of the gnt's - let her die because it wasn't on their prescription?
How do you know what he is does and does not know? Addisonian has said nothing that makes me think he doesn't know about anaphylactic shock for a start.
Surely this is the issue. If it cannot do any harm, then there would be no problem with everyone carrying one and using them willy nilly if someone appears to have a bad reaction. They needn't be restricted to pharmacists. They could be available at the corner shop.
Think of it like this; a non-medical professional was demanding a prescription drug from a pharmacist who couldn't even see the person who needed the medication. Imagine if the mother - as someone who is not medically trained - had accidently requested the wrong medication and the pharmacist handed it over. The pharmacist could then have been directly responsible for a person's death, because the wrong prescription medication could potentially be deadly.
The pharmacist had no choice. Prescription drugs are dangerous and can't be handed out at the demand of any random person. This incident is tragic, but not the fault of the pharmacist.
The article even states that the family admit the restaurant correctly labelled the food as containing nuts and they missed it. They also admit that they forgot to bring their daughter's medicine with them. Again, I say this is a sad and tragic incident, but the only blame that can be laid is at the feet of the family themselves. They were the only one to make mistakes. The pharmacy can not be blamed for this, no matter how much they seem to be being treated as the whipping-boy.
You cant guarantee anything and I've explained why. You are completely wrong and you've been untruthful above as you are contradicting what you said in your earlier post
There is no point in lying when your original view is inches away on a page
Yes they have.
You don't understand and educating you isn't my job
My daughter is very careful, she hasn't had an attack for six years and she is eighteen.
I can't stop her from not keeping her epipen on her all the time, I try. I can't make her friends think it's important, when she thinks she knows the score and won't make an issue of it.
She might need help, and I hope to god that she doesn't have to rely on someone that won't even TRY.
Why the sarcasm? It won't KILL you, unless you're a heart case. And a shock could do that.
Would you leave someone to die because you couldn't make any sort of judgement in a human way?
Don't be so patronising.
http://drugs.webmd.boots.com/drugs/drug-8-Adrenaline+epinephrine.aspx?drugid=8&drugname=Adrenaline%2bepinephrine&source=2&isTicTac=False
Clearly its not a simple case of "you can inject it into anyone and its perfectly fine." If you don't know the patient, you clearly shouldn't just be handing it out to anyone for unknown use.
So if the pharmacist has not had the opportunity to check if the person in question has a heart condition, then it would be inappropriate to administer an epipen. Thanks for clearing that up.