Lawsuits Claiming That Pharmacies Must Warn Customers About Dangers Associated With Prescription Drugs
Complete Text duty_to_warn
INTRODUCTION
Patients injured by prescription drugs sometimes claim that their pharmacists had a duty to warn
them about potential side effects and other dangers associated with prescription drugs. This
memorandum provides citations to court decisions from across the country that address the issue
of whether and when pharmacists have a duty to warn.
Most courts have ruled that pharmacists do not have a general duty to warn patients about their
prescribed drugs. Instead, the general rule is that drug manufacturers have a duty to provide
general warnings to physicians, and then physicians have a duty to warn their patients about the
drugs they prescribe. Most courts impose this duty to warn on physicians, rather than
pharmacists, because physicians decide which drugs to prescribe. Physicians know which
warnings are appropriate for a particular patient because they have access to the patient’s
complete medical history. This “learned intermediary doctrine” is the traditional rationale for
rejecting claims that pharmacists have a duty to warn.
A few state courts have rejected the learned intermediary doctrine, and have instead decided that
pharmacists do have a general duty to warn patients. Although most courts that have considered
the issue reject the notion that state counseling laws create a duty to warn, a minority of courts
have pointed to counseling laws as evidence that pharmacists have a duty to warn.
Other courts have held that pharmacists have a duty to warn only in certain circumstances. For
example, some courts have ruled that pharmacists have a duty to warn about known
contraindications, or clear errors on the face of a prescription (e.g., excessive dosages). Other
courts reject the notion of a general duty to warn, but hold that a pharmacy can voluntarily
assume a duty to warn. For example, a pharmacy that advertises its drug utilization review and
computer warning systems may have assumed a duty to warn about dangerous side effects.
It would seem that the edicts by the DEA and the rulings of our court system.. in regards of a Pharmacist’s responsible are in conflict.. Courts in different states have come to different conclusions as to a Pharmacist’s Duty to Warn… some of which are in direct conflict to the DEA’s interpretation of a Pharmacist’s Corresponding Responsibility.
Filed under: General Problems
“Patients injured by prescription drugs sometimes claim that their pharmacists had a duty to warn them about potential side effects and other dangers associated with prescription drugs.”
I think pharmacists have a duty to warn about potential drug interactions, especially with a new prescription, but all of this information is found in the very length attachment that comes with every drug. (I guess it doesn’t include interactions with the “natural” drugs that millions of people take and that Attorneys General are now suing over.)
Maybe I’m the only one who reads the attachments, and I guess we can’t expect everyone to read and understand them — which is why it’s a good idea for a pharmacist or their staff to point out dangerous side effects.
Still, the doctor should be responsible for explaining any prescribed drug to their patient — and the patient has to be responsible for knowing what they’re ingesting.
Let me know when this gets solved as well as thr medical necessity mandate by the DEA in terms of script validations. Anyone believe for one second a pill mill doc isn’t going to validate the rx as legit through bogus icd9 codes and other garbage?
So, which is it? Shut up and fill it, you’re not a doctor, or warn me about it and save my life?
People cannot have it both ways. They gripe when the pharm questions the script and/or refuses to fill yet, at the same time screams that the pharm should have warned them?
What the heck.