Pharmacists: Requirements or Courtesy
In August of 2000, a case went to the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Texas. The lawsuit was against physicians and pharmacies who cared for a 12 year old boy named Cameron Pettus. Cameron was 14 when he died.
When Cameron was 12 years old he was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Why his diagnosis was so delayed is unknown, but when he was diagnosed his physician(s) prescribed the medication desipramine, also known under the brand names of Norpramin or Pertofrane. It is a tricylic antidepressant and is indicated in the "treatment of endogenous depressive illness, including the depressed phase of manic depressive illness, involutional melancholia and psychotic depression. It may also be indicated in the management of depression of a nonpsychotic degree such as in selected cases of depressive neurosis." Phillip W. Long, M.D. copyright © 1995-1999 www.mentalhealth.com Whether or not this medication was appropriate for the treatment of Cameron is not the subject for this article, but rather the lawsuit and the ramifications that ensued after his death. For the record, this medication is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of ADD and is not indicated for use in children. In fact, use in children in contraindicated.
In 1993, when Cameron died, an autopsy was performed and the physician who performed the autopsy stated that he died from the use of this drug. A reaction had occurred that destroyed his heart, liver and lungs and this reaction was caused by the use of this drug, again keeping in mind that this drug is not indicated for use in children.
His parents sued the physicians and the pharmacists in Texas involved in their son's care and all of the malpractice suits were settled out of court. That is, all but one. Wal-Mart Pharmacy would not settle out of court, and apparently when the case went to the jury Wal-Mart lost. They appealed and when the case was reheard in the Court of Appeals, the verdict was overturned and Wal-Mart won. The family had sued based on the belief that Texas law dictates that a pharmacist is responsible for warning a patient and/or the family of dangerous side effects. The family lost the case based on the court's interpretation of the law which they believed pertained to drug storage and regulation and not so much in warning patients. The court stated that a pharmacist may warn a patient or family but is not required by law to do so. They went a step further by stating that the requiring of a pharmacist to warn of a dangerous side effect could actually result in compromising the relationship between doctor and patient.
Latest Articles