|
My fear is
that in the not too distant future I will be seeing or hearing
stories about multi-thousand dollar damages being awarded against
pharmacists because a medication has not worked!
Much joy has been expressed by different pharmacy organisations
about the OTC supply of emergency contraception by pharmacists
without a script.
Great!
Will pharmacists be asked to figuratively "carry the baby"
if the morning after pill does not work?
The picture is frightening.
We are rapidly moving towards the USA where pharmacists have been
sued not for making mistakes but for not giving "appropriate"
advice, listing ALL possible side effects, even if the incidence
is only one in ten million.
Damages have even been awarded in cases where the correct advice
was given but not followed simply "because the pharmacist
was not forceful enough".
Come off it, the old adage that "you can lead a horse to
water but you can't make it drink" must surely have some
application here.
When will the first pharmacist be asked to support a child conceived
because the dispensed oral contraceptive "failed" because
the mother claimed that she had not been advised that, in relation
to oral contraceptives:
1. They are not 100% certain, or
2. Some drugs/alternative medicines and/or medical conditions
may reduce their efficacy and additional methods of contraception
may need to be used?
My fear is
that pharmacists will soon have to video ALL counselling interactions
they have with customers and keep these for heaven knows how many
years just to ensure a defence against litigation. I have been
a clinical pharmacist for most of my working life and must have
advised tens of thousands of patients over the past thirty eight
years on various matters.
I hope that I have never done anything to cause injury to anyone
but even pharmacists are human and can make mistakes.
(Don't let that fact get out folks! Pharmacists are considered
to be wonderful and infallible by the general population and we
wouldn't want to disillusion them would we?)
Seriously however, do I have to hold my breath for years to come
in case that, in the future, I will suddenly be hit with a writ
claiming damages over some advice I may or may not have given
years ago?
The second
item was about another legal matter in which a pharmacist in a
largish (by WA standards) country town has successfully applied
for an injunction (under the 2km provisions) to delay the approval
of a new pharmacy.
Our local ABC station made much of the story, doing its best to
show the profession in a bad light. Everyone from the state minister
to Joe Blow in the street had something to say on the matter,
including the owner of the current approved pharmacy.
I was upset to hear the profession tearing itself apart over this
case where, once again, there appears to be an unholy desire to
rush to the lawyers to "sort things out".
I am well aware that commercial considerations have played a major
part in this case but the poor old patient (I choose this term
intentionally) seems to have been forgotten.
We all understand that the viability of pharmacy services is necessary,
but this town of 10000 people is said to be quite capable of more
than adequately supporting two pharmacies.
The ABC journalist gleefully asked, "why, in this day and
age, is the bureaucracy allowing the fact that the new pharmacy
is100 metres too close to cause this problem?"
My question is slightly different, "why, when all and sundry
are looking for ways to attack the profession in it current guise,
does pharmacy insist on handing its "enemies" ready
made free kicks?"
What do these stories have to do with consultant pharmacy (my
i2P "area of expertise")?
That is easy to answer.
As pharmacy moves from a predominantly supply function towards
a greater intellectual quality use of medicines role it will find
itself moving into the minefield of professional indemnity litigation,
where cases like the failed sterilisation one mentioned above,
will become all too possible.
Given this future, I would hope that pharmacy does not become
"lawyer happy" as with the second story. Pharmacists
appear amongst the most trusted of professions in surveys so let
us steer clear of contentious legal issues that might jeopardise
that public standing.
As a clinician I want my patients to continue to trust me to do
the best for them without the threat of litigation being becoming
a necessary stick.
Compared to medical indemnity insurance , my PDL premium is mere
peanuts and I would really like it to stay that way!
|