Calgary Dad Suing Shoppers Drug Mart

[Burninator]

From the article.

Among those negligent acts was “failing to inform Marit that Diane-35 should be discontinued three to four months after signs of acne have completely resolved” and “continuing to renew Marit’s prescription in the face of Health Canada warnings advising consumers of the risks of taking Diane-35.” The lawsuit alleges other pharmacies provided the necessary warnings where Shoppers did not.

Sounds like something they should have brought up with her.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Burninator

From the article.


Sounds like something they should have brought up with her.

Wouldn't the pharmacist get that info form the doctors prescription? Besides, it's birth control, there are a ton of women out there that are on this medication for years.

[GGG]

This is from the Alberta College of Pharmacy Website https://pharmacists.ab.ca/nPublic/Ph...x#PersonalInfo

Why does it take so long to get my prescription filled?


Filling a prescription is more than just counting pills. When pharmacists fill prescriptions, they check the medication, dose and instructions to make sure they are right for you. They review your confidential care record to check for possible problems. Your pharmacist enters the details of your current prescription onto your record of care. Your pharmacist will also talk to you about:

• why you have been prescribed this particular drug,
• how and when to take your medication,
• what potential side effects you may need to watch for, and
• how to store your medication

So it seems like part of their role is to advise on side effects.

[Minnie]

We fill at SDM, almost exclusively (except the Biologic my daughter is on, which has to be filled elsewhere, at the behest of the insurance company). When we get our prescriptions, and they are prescriptions we haven't had before, the pharms have been pretty good at covering side effects with us. But for certain medications that we've had several times in the past, they no longer cover the side effects with us. I'm pretty stringent on my own, researching all the meds we are prescribed and if I find something I want more information on, or to make sure it isn't BS info, I always call our pharm - they've been pretty good at answering any and all questions I've asked.

Was it this article that said the SDM pharm didn't say anything because they didn't want to frighten the girl regarding the side effects? I thought I read that but it may have been a different article.

When our daughter was put on the Biologic, her Rheumatologist, our pharmacist and Enliven (Amgen's patient assistance program deliverer) all covered EVERY possibility regarding side effects, particularly the very serious ones - some of those side effects have extremely low chances of ever occurring but because they're a big deal, they were very thorough. They don't cover them anymore, after 2 years. She has to go for routine bloodwork every 3 months as a part of the monitoring.

SDM is in the news a lot today. A pharmacist that works (well, worked, I guess, at another glance) out of a SE Calgary store is in deep poop for using their in-house system to access personal information to try and befriend a patient/client.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Wouldn't the pharmacist get that info form the doctors prescription? Besides, it's birth control, there are a ton of women out there that are on this medication for years.

By rights Diane 35 is a combined hormonal contraceptive.

If the doctor writes the prescription with enough refills for 15 months, then one would assume the doctor intended the therapy to last that long. That does not mitigate liability though, as was mentioned earlier in this thread that the Pharmacists role is to educate and help prevent drug related problems.

I won't comment much more, as I own a Shoppers Drug Mart and lawsuits make me uneasy. We are all independently owned and insured, so I find it unlikely that they are suing the franchise. More likely the franchisee and the individual Pharmacist would be my guess.

I would ask people to read this first before commenting on the drug or the Pharmacists actions:


Position Statement: Diane-35 and Risk of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE)

http://sogc.org/media_updates/positi...oembolism-vte/

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Wouldn't the pharmacist get that info form the doctors prescription? Besides, it's birth control, there are a ton of women out there that are on this medication for years.

Diane 35 does have a higher risk than most bcp. Not greatly, but higher. Therefore it's own monograph states that a woman should not be on it for longer than 6 months.

Just judging from what I see, almost all patients in it are on it for years. It's vte profile is similar to Yasmin which does not have this limitation on length of time

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I have no knowledge of the girl's case, but Pharmacists arn't there to prevent side effects (which is impossible), their job is to ensure the patient is getting the right dose, and won't interact with other drugs/medical issues (a big part of their job). Being a guru who can predict whom will have side effects is not their job.

We are there to educate the patient on potential side effects, but that doesn't necessarily mean giving any and all side effects. It's our job to educate the patient on what's important. I personally will discuss the blood clot issue with Yasmin, Yaz and Diane 35 with the patient, but put it in perspective. I only do that when initiating therapy, and will do so on refills only if questions come up. Perhaps I should begin doing it with each refill now, I'm not sure.

You're right in that we can't list off every possible side effect. Patients would come away scared to take it and remembering little of what we've talked about.

[macrov]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Is it really the pharmacy's job to communicate potential side effects?

Yeah it stinks but it seems like this possible effect is well-known. It would obviously be on the label and was likely advised to her by her doctor who prescribed it. At what point is it the consumer's fault? I guess that's what the lawsuit will discover.

Is this a troll job? Are you ####ing serious?

Why do pharmacies pay pharmacists $100k per year and make them go through 4-years of schooling? And why has the government made this a restricted profession? Why can't I just go and open up a pharmacy and be a pharmasist, like I can go open up a coffee shop and be the barista?

If it isn't the pharmacy's responsibility to explain to customer's the possible sideffects of medication, what exactly is their job? And if their job is simply to fill perscriptions, why don't they get paid $12 an hour like the workers at couche-tard or 7/11?

Do you know what the saddest part of this story is? Its not that this girl died from a rare side-effect. Its that she was experiencing the side-effects that were a known precursor to death for 2 weeks. And she went to the doctor to explain the side effects she was experiencing.

The only problem was that the pharmasist who filled her perscription never told her in advance that death was a side-effect, and if she experiences the symptioms she was experiencing she should stop taking the medication immediately or she might die.

And so she died.

Because Shoppers Drug Mart corporate personnel is far too busy expanding and growing their product offerings to cheetos and turtles chocolates to actually think about the best practices for pharmaceutical service. In fact, they outsourced this part of their job (the written pamphlets that get handed out with a perception fill). Because thats where the money is, and there is no reprucussions for giving bad service (except that 18 y.o girls die. But that doesn't hurt the share price).

Gross Negligence, pure and simple. And there should be a law suit to hit the pocket books of Shoppers so they actually understand that pharmacy is public utility, and if they're unprepared to offer proper service, they should change their name to Shoppers Mart.

But there is a $85k maximum damages because the pharmacy industry has lobbied the government, and the government listened.

Monkeys riding donkeys.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by macrov

Is this a troll job? Are you ####ing serious?

Why do pharmacies pay pharmacists $100k per year and make them go through 4-years of schooling? And why has the government made this a restricted profession? Why can't I just go and open up a pharmacy and be a pharmasist, like I can go open up a coffee shop and be the barista?

If it isn't the pharmacy's responsibility to explain to customer's the possible sideffects of medication, what exactly is their job? And if their job is simply to fill perscriptions, why don't they get paid $12 an hour like the workers at couche-tard or 7/11?

Do you know what the saddest part of this story is? Its not that this girl died from a rare side-effect. Its that she was experiencing the side-effects that were a known precursor to death for 2 weeks. And she went to the doctor to explain the side effects she was experiencing.

The only problem was that the pharmasist who filled her perscription never told her in advance that death was a side-effect, and if she experiences the symptioms she was experiencing she should stop taking the medication immediately or she might die.

And so she died.

Because Shoppers Drug Mart corporate personnel is far too busy expanding and growing their product offerings to cheetos and turtles chocolates to actually think about the best practices for pharmaceutical service. In fact, they outsourced this part of their job (the written pamphlets that get handed out with a perception fill). Because thats where the money is, and there is no reprucussions for giving bad service (except that 18 y.o girls die. But that doesn't hurt the share price).

Gross Negligence, pure and simple. And there should be a law suit to hit the pocket books of Shoppers so they actually understand that pharmacy is public utility, and if they're unprepared to offer proper service, they should change their name to Shoppers Mart.

But there is a $85k maximum damages because the pharmacy industry has lobbied the government, and the government listened.

Monkeys riding donkeys.

So you are saying Shoppers intentionally, carelessly, and consciously acted to cause this? Negligence, yeah, maybe, but Gross Negligence I don't think it is "pure and simple".

But that is just my opinion

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by macrov

Is this a troll job? Are you ####ing serious?

Why do pharmacies pay pharmacists $100k per year and make them go

Do you know what the saddest part of this story is? Its not that this girl died from a rare side-effect. Its that she was experiencing the side-effects that were a known precursor to death for 2 weeks. And she went to the doctor to explain the side effects she was experiencing.

The only problem was that the pharmasist who filled her perscription never told her in advance that death was a side-effect, and if she experiences the symptioms she was experiencing she should stop taking the medication immediately or she might die.

And so she died.

Wow didn't expect to elicit such a passionate response.

What I'm saying is: at what point is the onus on the person taking the medication?

The side effects are well known, the doctor was probably aware of them, the person taking the drugs had to be aware of them too. If they chose to continue taking the medication, then how is Shopper's at fault? And how can one even conclusively prove that the pharmacist did NOT communicate the side effects and warn against continued use? Can pharmacies legally withhold a prescription from someone?

I'll admit there are a lot of things I don't know about pharmacies but it doesn't seem to be so cut-and-dry that Shoppers is absolutely at fault.

[cracher]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Is it really the pharmacy's job to communicate potential side effects?

Yeah it stinks but it seems like this possible effect is well-known. It would obviously be on the label and was likely advised to her by her doctor who prescribed it. At what point is it the consumer's fault? I guess that's what the lawsuit will discover.

I tend to agree with you on this one. I'm not sure the pharmacy should be the target of the lawsuit (but, of the people you can go after, they would be the most likely to settle to avoid further press, esp on such pocket change amounts).

I'm not at all familiar with this particular med. But if you are supposed to stop after the acne stops, one would think the MD has a hand in it. Acne is a diagnosis... as is resolving or resolved acne. Pharmacy cannot render a diagnosis. I would think this falls to the MD to follow-up and order the stop.

Every medication has risk. Every medication also has an extensive list of those risks packaged neatly in the box. If every pharmacist had to go through each and every one with everyone, that would be a gargantuan waste of time. I have to think that some responsibility has to fall on the patient to read the list and, if they have specific questions, then ask the pharmacist.

[macrov]

Gross negligence... A indifferent and blatant violation of legal duty with respect for others.

In my head its clear. Shoppers violated their duty to their customer by not conveying to the customer that the symptoms of wheezing, tiredness, etc could be caused by the medication and that these symptoms early warning signs that the medication could cause blood clotting and possibly death. If they had given her the info, she would have gotten the precursor symptoms, stopped the medication and still be alive.

They were indifferent because they only reported the 5 most common side effects with disregard to the seriousness of those side effects (death is more serious than breast tenderness). And it was a blatant violation that led to her death.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by macrov

Gross negligence... A indifferent and blatant violation of legal duty with respect for others.

In my head its clear. Shoppers violated their duty to their customer by not conveying to the customer that the symptoms of wheezing, tiredness, etc could be caused by the medication and that these symptoms early warning signs that the medication could cause blood clotting and possibly death. If they had given her the info, she would have gotten the precursor symptoms, stopped the medication and still be alive.

They were indifferent because they only reported the 5 most common side effects with disregard to the seriousness of those side effects (death is more serious than breast tenderness). And it was a blatant violation that led to her death.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

In your clear incredible knowledge of this, do you realize that Pharmacists are independent professionals? The The College of Pharmacy is responsible for insuring the competence of their Pharmacists, not SDM. How the hell is SDM corporate acting "grossly negligent"?

Get off your Internet distance fuelled high horse.

[cracher]

Street Pharmacist: As a curiosity thing, are pharmacists required to chart/document their interactions with the patient? and to what level of detail? If there are no records on what was discussed, would this lawsuit not come down to "you didn't tell me anything" vs "oh yes i did!"?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by cracher

Street Pharmacist: As a curiosity thing, are pharmacists required to chart/document their interactions with the patient? and to what level of detail? If there are no records on what was discussed, would this lawsuit not come down to "you didn't tell me anything" vs "oh yes i did!"?

Each province is regulated differently. In BC you are only required to document that you counseled. As a Pharmacist may have a many as 200 interactions with patients in an 8 hour day, detail is difficult

[btimbit]

I feel for his loss, but you can't blame the store. Why sue Shoppers Drug Mart instead of the Pharmacist? That almost screams cash grab to me. My dad's a Front Store Manager for Shoppers, the Pharmacy's are independently owned and operated. That'd be like getting run over in a car dealership lot, and suing the car company (who had nothing to do with it) and not the dealership.

I suppose it could be that the article simply doesn't mention all the facts, maybe he is suing the franchisee and not Shoppers. But anyone calling out Shoppers Drug Mart for being negligent just doesn't understand how they operate.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I feel for his loss, but you can't blame the store. Why sue Shoppers Drug Mart instead of the Pharmacist? That almost screams cash grab to me. My dad's a Front Store Manager for Shoppers, the Pharmacy's are independently owned and operated. That'd be like getting run over in a car dealership lot, and suing the car company (who had nothing to do with it) and not the dealership.

I suppose it could be that the article simply doesn't mention all the facts, maybe he is suing the franchisee and not Shoppers. But anyone calling out Shoppers Drug Mart for being negligent just doesn't understand how they operate.

They are independently owned and operated but are IN a shoppers drug mart. When you go to a pharmacy as a customer and it is IN SDM then you are going to the shoppers pharmacy. Why should the pharmacy operate in a SDM and then cry "independently owned and operated" when something like this happens? SDM benefits greatly from the pharmacy being there so they should be a defendant as well when something bad happens.

Not agreeing it's a legitimate lawsuit or picking sides but why shouldn't SDM be named a defendant? The alleged negligence happened IN their store where they advertise the pharmacy being there. They should be at least held partly responsible if their was any negligence on their side.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

They are independently owned and operated but are IN a shoppers drug mart. When you go to a pharmacy as a customer and it is IN SDM then you are going to the shoppers pharmacy. Why should the pharmacy operate in a SDM and then cry "independently owned and operated" when something like this happens? SDM benefits greatly from the pharmacy being there so they should be a defendant as well when something bad happens.

Not agreeing it's a legitimate lawsuit or picking sides but why shouldn't SDM be named a defendant? The alleged negligence happened IN their store where they advertise the pharmacy being there. They should be at least held partly responsible if their was any negligence on their side.

THE store IS independently owned and operated. The pharmacy and the front stote are the same business. They are part of the same franchise add other SDM stores, but I'm not sure what the banner did wrong here

I'll ask again, what did SDM do wrong?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

They are independently owned and operated but are IN a shoppers drug mart. When you go to a pharmacy as a customer and it is IN SDM then you are going to the shoppers pharmacy. Why should the pharmacy operate in a SDM and then cry "independently owned and operated" when something like this happens? SDM benefits greatly from the pharmacy being there so they should be a defendant as well when something bad happens.

Not agreeing it's a legitimate lawsuit or picking sides but why shouldn't SDM be named a defendant? The alleged negligence happened IN their store where they advertise the pharmacy being there. They should be at least held partly responsible if their was any negligence on their side.

From an SDM perspective wouldnt insuring the pharmicist is licensed with the governing body be enough to to say they werent negligent. They did what was required by law. What else should have SDM done presuming the pharmisist isnt the owner of the SDM

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

THE store IS independently owned and operated. The pharmacy and the front stote are the same business. They are part of the same franchise add other SDM stores, but I'm not sure what the banner did wrong here

I'll ask again, what did SDM do wrong?

I'm not sure either and it could very well be they did nothing wrong which the courts will decide but I don't think just because the pharmacy is independently owned and operated that it somehow makes SDM not responsible for alleged negligence that happens on their property and from a pharmacy they benefit from.